[1] Whether the heavy registration tax and the registration tax are subject to voluntary return and payment in relation to the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation or a branch within a large city under the former Local Tax Act (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where the requirements for heavy registration tax are met only due to the establishment of a branch after the registration of acquisition of real estate under the former Local Tax Act, whether the imposition of heavy registration tax and the imposition of heavy registration tax on the ground that the tax authority failed to perform its voluntary reporting and

[1] According to all the provisions concerning registration tax under the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), where the requirements for heavy registration tax are met only after the registration of acquisition of real estate falling under Article 138 (1) 3 of the same Act and the former part of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, "establishment, establishment, or transfer of a corporation or a branch after the registration of acquisition of real estate," the taxpayer cannot be deemed to be liable for voluntary report and payment of registration tax imposed on the taxpayer, but in the case of "real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, or transfer of a corporation or a branch, etc." under Article 138 (1) 3 of the same Act and the latter part of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the taxpayer is already liable for voluntary report and payment of registration tax imposed on the time of registration.

[2] Where the requirements for heavy registration tax are satisfied only after establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation or a branch after the registration of acquisition of real estate under the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), the imposition of additional tax on the premise that the tax authority is liable for voluntary report and payment of registration tax imposed on the taxpayer, and in this case, there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the statutes until the Supreme Court decides that the taxpayer is not liable for voluntary report and payment. Thus, even if the defect was serious without the legal basis, it cannot be viewed as an inevitable invalidation.

[1] Articles 124, 138(1)3, and 151 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 90, 91, and 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994); Articles 124, 138(1)3, and 151 of the former Local Tax Act; Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994); Article 104-2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 194); Article 124, Article 138(1)3, and Article 151 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1480 of Dec. 14, 1994)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da56217 delivered on March 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1356) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10619 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1911), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14816 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1924), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1019 delivered on June 16, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2637) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da50106 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong195, 195Sang, 195) 195Da197589 delivered on May 196, 195 (Gong1995)

Orh Energy Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Im-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na21367 delivered on September 20, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited in part by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case, such as site and gas station around December 31, 1990, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and established its branch office on January 21, 1991, and registered the business. The plaintiff paid 53,870,40 won in total with registration tax and its defense tax when he completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1990. However, since the head of Seodaemun-gu delegated by the defendant market, he did not have the above duty to submit registration tax to the plaintiff under Article 138 (1) 3 and 151 of the Local Tax Act which was enforced at the time of June 191, 191, the court below determined that the above duty to submit tax to the plaintiff for voluntary declaration and payment of registration tax under Article 138 (2) 3 and 251 of the Local Tax Act, and thus, the above duty to submit tax to the plaintiff for voluntary declaration and payment of registration tax under Article 1529.

Therefore, even if the registration tax of the Health House and the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), if a branch office, etc. established after the registration of acquisition of real estate meets the requirements for heavy registration tax, the taxpayer cannot be deemed to have the obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax imposed thereon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10619, May 12, 1992). On the other hand, Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 102(2) of the Local Tax Act, "real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a juristic person in a large city" has already satisfied the requirements for heavy taxation at the time of the registration of real estate, and if the taxpayer did not voluntarily report and pay the registration tax at the time of registration under the above Article 151(3) of the same Act, the said obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax after 196.25Da1965.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant's imposition of additional tax as a legitimate invalidity and ordered the return of the amount paid according to the disposition as a civil unjust enrichment is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for invalidation of the taxation disposition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal on this point are with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)