The case holding that where a corporation for which five years have not passed since its head office was moved into a large city and a corporation for which five years have passed since its establishment in a large city acquired real estate after its acquisition, registration tax cannot be imposed on the portion corresponding to the ratio of assets of the extinguished corporation.

The case holding that it is reasonable to view that registration tax cannot be imposed on the part corresponding to the ratio of assets of an extinguished corporation which has been more than five years after the merger, even if the surviving corporation had transferred its head office to Seoul and completed registration of acquisition of real estate within five years after the merger, in view of the fact that the surviving corporation succeeds to the assets of the extinguished corporation as well as all rights and obligations by combining the merged corporation, and the part corresponding to the ratio of assets of the extinguished corporation which has been more than five years since its establishment in Seoul, despite the fact that the surviving corporation did not bring about new population inflow or economic concentration despite its merger, it is reasonable to view that registration tax cannot be imposed on the part corresponding to the ratio of assets of the extinguished corporation which has been more than five years since its establishment in Seoul, and even if so, it does not go against the legislative purport or purport of Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 201).

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 2001); Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17447 of Dec. 31, 2001)

Kuho Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul High Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu9706 delivered on June 5, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on the evidence of its employment, that the plaintiff company prior to the merger merged its head office from Gwangju to Seoul on May 1, 200, after the merger of Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Dong Life") on March 25, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 20, 201, after acquiring the real estate of this case for the purpose of using it as its head office office or rooftop building, and continued to engage in business activities at the same place in Seoul around May 1973. The court below determined that the plaintiff, a corporation surviving the merger, succeeded not only to the assets of Dong Life, all rights and obligations, and even if five years have not passed since the plaintiff company moved its head office to the large city, it is reasonable to view that the part corresponding to the ratio of assets of Dong life insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Dong Life Co., Ltd."), which constitutes the new population or economic power within 5 years after the merger, even if it did not cause the new acquisition of real estate within 20 years after the merger.

In light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to heavy registration tax, the principle of strict interpretation, and the legal principles as to no taxation without law, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The decisions cited by the Defendant in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case, unlike the instant case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The court below held that the provision of Article 102 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as amended on December 31, 2001 is not applied directly to this case, but can be interpreted to the same effect as the above revised provision even if it is interpreted before the amendment. Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal on the premise that the court below directly applied Article 102 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as amended in this case is not justified.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below determined the part excluded from the subject of heavy registration tax in the registration for acquisition of real estate of this case, and it is clear that only the part corresponding to the ratio of assets of the plaintiff company prior to the merger with East Asia is excluded from the subject of heavy taxation on the basis of the assessed value of assets of the plaintiff company prior to the merger. On the contrary, the defendant's ground of appeal pointing out that the court below erred in the judgment below

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)