[1] The meaning of the "branch or sub-branch" in the "real estate registration in accordance with the establishment of a branch or sub-branch in a large city", which is a heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act, and whether the employment form of its human organization must necessarily be bound by the pertinent legal entity (negative), and whether the application may vary depending on whether the registration tax is in conflict with the legislative purpose when the facts meet the registration tax and the requirements (negative)

[2] In a case where a non-profit corporation Gap operated a part of the real estate in which the main office is located as a hotel and entered into an entrusted operation contract with Eul company, but continuously involved in Eul company's hotel business and accounting, and the administrative office directed and supervised Eul company's employees and completed the business registration and the transfer registration of Eul company's branch office, and imposed registration tax on Gap company's branch office on the part of the accommodation facilities, the case affirming the judgment below that the disposition of imposition is legitimate

[1] Under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843 of Dec. 31, 2005), Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20708 of Feb. 29, 2008), and Article 55-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 10 of Mar. 24, 2008), "branch or sub-branch" means a business place registered under the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, where its affairs or business are conducted continuously with human resources and material facilities, regardless of its name, the human facilities here mean that the number of people are permanently stationed under the direction and supervision of the relevant corporation, and it does not necessarily require the dispersion of population in a large city and its specific form is not necessarily required to be applied to each of the above provisions.

[2] In a case where a non-profit corporation Gap established for the purpose of parasary missionary activity, etc., operated the part of the existing accommodation facilities other than the part of the religious facilities of the land and the building where the principal office is located as a hotel, and entered into an entrusted operation contract for the company Eul, the court affirmed the judgment below holding that Gap corporation's disposition of excessive imposition of registration tax on the part of the accommodation facilities, on the ground that Gap corporation's establishment of a new branch office and registration of transfer of the company Gap's establishment of a new establishment of a branch office in a large city constitutes real estate registration "real estate registration pursuant to the establishment of a branch office in a large city", on the ground that Gap corporation's establishment of a new establishment of a hotel business and its accounts were separated not only for the establishment of a separate branch office but also for the establishment of a separate branch office, but also for the wide scope of involvement and supervision of Eul corporation's hotel business and accounting, and Gap corporation's establishment of a new hotel business with various physical facilities and direction and supervision of its employees.

[1] Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005; see current Article 28(2)); Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20708, Feb. 29, 2008; see current Article 45); Article 55-2 (see current Article 6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 10, Mar. 24, 2008); Article 138(1)3 (see current Article 28(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005; see current Article 208(2)); Article 205(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2075, Feb. 29, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du2737 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1544), Supreme Court Decision 98Du1673 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 799) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13162 Delivered on August 23, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1480), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13469 Delivered on August 24, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1484)

Korean Senior Korean Association Maintenance Foundation (Law Firm Barun Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Hong Sung-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu4499 decided September 30, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843 of Dec. 31, 2005), Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20708 of Feb. 29, 2008), and Article 55-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security No. 10 of Mar. 24, 2008), with respect to the real estate registration of the establishment of a branch or sub-branch in a large city which is a requirement for registration tax, a branch or sub-branch refers to a place of business registered under the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act where the business or sub-branch of the relevant juristic person continues to be conducted with human and material equipment, regardless of its name, and the human facilities mentioned above refer to the sale of personnel under the direction and supervision of the relevant juristic person and does not necessarily require the relevant juristic person to be directly in the form of employment (see Supreme Court Decision 284.

In addition, each of the above provisions aims to prevent the population expansion following the entry of the population into a large city and to ensure the dispersion of the population in a large city. However, in principle, each of the above provisions should be applied uniformly if the requirements under each of the above provisions are met. In a specific case, the application of the above provisions cannot be decided by taking into account whether it is inconsistent with the legislative purpose (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Du1673, Mar. 26, 1999; 2005Du13162, Aug. 23, 2007).

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with its principal office on November 26, 1980 for the purpose of missionary activities, etc., with the head office located in Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and newly constructed a general meeting hall at that place on May 26, 2003. The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the general meeting hall at the location of the place of business and the establishment of the branch office at the location of the business as a real estate leasing business. 2 The Plaintiff’s new plan for the establishment of the general meeting hall at the wind of the building at that place to be designated as cultural property was omitted on December 20, 2004. 2. The Plaintiff purchased a new business registration certificate for the establishment of a branch office at the seat of 20-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate business registration certificate at the seat of 30-gu 20-gu 2, 2005. excluding the Plaintiff’s principal office and its principal office located.

Based on the above facts, the court below determined that the disposition of this case, which imposed heavy registration tax on the part of accommodation facilities, is legitimate on the ground that the plaintiff had a business registration for hotel business for hotel business, etc., on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff continued to operate hotel business with various physical facilities related to the part of accommodation facilities in the real estate in this case, and that the plaintiff had a separate branch office for the establishment of a separate branch office, and that the plaintiff had a wide scope of involvement and supervision over the business and accounting of the hotel business.

In light of the above provisions, legal principles, and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for heavy registration tax or the lack of reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)