Whether the tax office may additionally levy and impose the registration tax and the defense tax, with the actual acquisition value as the tax base amount when the registration tax and the defense tax are paid according to the standard market price (the relationship between the former Local Tax Act).

According to Article 130(1) of the former Local Tax Act that provides the tax base of real estate registration tax, the tax base of real estate registration tax is only reported by the applicant and does not stipulate that the acquisition value shall be reported. However, since there is no indication of the reported value or the reported value is below the standard market value, the standard market value of the relevant tax shall be the tax base amount. Thus, as long as the original reported value of the Plaintiff is the same as the standard market value of the taxation, registration tax and defense tax paid by the tax office is lawful, and the registration tax and defense tax by the actual acquisition

Article 130 of the Local Tax Act (Gu)

May 27, 1980, 80Nu67 decided May 27, 198 (Law No. 1354)

101.200

Head of Busan Metropolitan City North Korea

The disposition of imposition of registration tax of KRW 5,226,492 and defense tax of KRW 1,045,298 imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff as of September 15, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The Defendant imposed registration tax on the Plaintiff on September 15, 1979 KRW 5,226,492; KRW 1,045,298; KRW 6,271,790 on the aggregate of KRW 6,790 on the Plaintiff’s real estate was not a dispute between the parties; KRW 1,2,35, and KRW 65,56, respectively; KRW 1,2,55, and KRW 6, and KRW 1,2, and KRW 1,55, respectively; KRW 7,97, the Plaintiff’s total amount of registration tax on the said real estate was 9,67, and KRW 3,75, and KRW 1,75,00 on the same real estate amount was 9, KRW 96,75, and KRW 1,75,75,75, and KRW 97,5,000 on each of the above real estate’s real estate amount was 9,79,75,75,75, respectively.

However, according to Article 130 (1) of the Local Tax Act at the time of registration of each of the above real estate (Act No. 2845 of Dec. 31, 1976), the tax base amount for real estate shall be determined by the applicant’s report amount. However, since there is no indication of the reported value or the reported value falls short of the standard market value, the Plaintiff’s return value on each of the above real estate shall be the tax base amount. Thus, as long as the reported value on each of the above real estate is the same as the standard market value of taxation, the registration tax on each of the above real estate shall be imposed only in accordance with the Plaintiff’s return amount. The above provision is natural in light of the principle of no taxation without law, and the Defendant cannot find the basis for imposing registration tax on each of the above real estate, and the provision of Article 151 of the above Local Tax Act is not applicable to the case where the reported value falls short of the tax base amount, and the provision of Article 64-2 of the Local Tax Act shall not apply to each of the above provisions of the Local Tax Act and the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of the above registration tax of KRW 5,226,492 and the defense tax of KRW 1,045,297, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 4 and Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act based on the registration tax of KRW 6,271,790, which was imposed on the Plaintiff as the basis of the registration tax of KRW 5,226,49 and Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act, shall be an illegal disposition not based on the law. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Maximum of Kim Young-il