U.S. First Class Association (Attorney Su-gil et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (Attorneys Han Han-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 19, 1983

The defendant's imposition of 17,264,042 won and 3,452,808 won and 3,452,808 won against the plaintiff on March 15, 1982 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of taxation; and

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the pleading as indicated in Gap evidence No. 1.10 and Eul evidence No. 1-1-23, which is not disputed, the plaintiff decided on September 30, 1981 4 apartment buildings such as non-party 4, Seo-gu, Busan, 27-1, 120,000 won and the share of the land attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as "this real estate"), which were purchased on October 10, 100, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 10, 130, 1300 won, and the above price is the amount as tax base pursuant to Article 130 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, and the registration tax rate of 130,000 won (30/1,00) calculated pursuant to the latter part of Article 131 (1) 2 of the same Act and the tax rate of 13,613,198 of the same Act, which is applied to the plaintiff's voluntary payment within the extent of 15.

2. Assertion and determination

The plaintiff's representative, first, after establishing Busan branch office on September 17, 197, established the Seoul branch office to correct the registration of the branch office, and the Seoul branch office is not included in the relocation of the corporation's branch office under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act. Second, even if the branch office is transferred from this case to a large city, the transfer of the corporation's branch office to a large city under the above provision of the Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act does not mean the relocation of the real estate into the large city. It means the transfer of the real estate to the 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 190, 138, 138, 138, 200, 138, 200, 300, 300, 300, 300,0000, 12,000,00, 1).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments, the defendant's additional taxation disposition based on the premise that the registration of acquisition of real estate constitutes a registration subject to heavy registration tax, is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's objection claim seeking revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

May 10, 1983

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)