[1] The meaning of "when a transaction or act, etc. becomes final and conclusive as different by a judgment in a lawsuit related thereto" under Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

[2] In a case where Gap church held a title trust with Eul, the land for the worship dividends, etc., and Eul filed a lawsuit against Eul, after Eul died, and Byung et al. filed a claim for transfer registration of ownership of the above real estate against Byung et al., and the decision to recommend a settlement to the Gap church was confirmed and the inheritor sought revocation of the disposition to impose acquisition tax on the above real estate, the case affirming the judgment below that the above decision to recommend a settlement does not constitute

[1] Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015) / [2] Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015); Articles 7(1) and 20(1) of the Local Tax Act; Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Du22379 Decided July 28, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 1846) Supreme Court Decision 2017Du41740 Decided September 7, 2017 (Gong2017Ha, 1931)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Jongno-gu (Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu41182 decided September 1, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal on substance over form principle

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined to the effect that (1) the Nonparty acquired a complete ownership of the instant land and the heir, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to the ownership of the instant land; and (2) even if the Nonparty or the Plaintiff did not use or profit from the instant land, insofar as the heir, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to the ownership of the instant land due to the death of the Nonparty, the liability to pay acquisition tax, etc. on the instant land was established, and thus, imposing the acquisition tax, etc. on the Plaintiff

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the substance over form principle, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

B. As to the ground of appeal on the grounds for subsequent request for correction

Article 45-2(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 13552, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) provides that “Any person who has filed a return on a tax base by the statutory deadline for return, or who has received the determination of the tax base and amount of national taxes, may file a claim for the determination or correction within two months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the occurrence of any of the following grounds,” and Subparag. 1 of the same Article provides that “When any transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax in the initial return, determination or correction, becomes final and conclusive as different by a final judgment (including any reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment)

The purport of the ex post facto request for correction is to expand the protection of taxpayers’ rights by allowing taxpayers to file a request for reduction of the tax base and amount of tax when there is a change in the basis for calculating the tax base and amount of tax due to the occurrence of a certain subsequent cause after the establishment of the tax liability. Of the grounds for the ex post facto request for correction, the term “when the transaction, act, etc., becomes final and conclusive as different by a judgment, etc. in a lawsuit against it” under Article 45-2(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes refers to cases where a dispute over the transaction, act, etc., on which the tax base and amount of tax are calculated becomes final and conclusive as different by a judgment, etc. in a lawsuit against it (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2379, Jul. 28, 2011, etc.).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) it cannot be deemed that the legal effect of “the Nonparty acquired the ownership of the instant land by the Nonparty, and thereafter the heir including the Plaintiff succeeded to the ownership of the instant land due to the death of the Nonparty,” was different from the legal effect of “the Nonparty acquired the ownership of the instant land by the Nonparty,” and rather, it did not constitute the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction, recognizing that the said decision on recommending reconciliation was premised on the legal effect as seen above, and thus, did not constitute the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) premised on the premise that ○○○○○ School Association, the owner of the said kindergarten building, entrusted the Nonparty with the registration of ownership preservation on the said kindergarten building; (b) determined that the above registration of ownership preservation was null and void pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and the heir, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to the duty of registration of cancellation, and did not complete the registration of inheritance; and (c)

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on acquisition tax liability of the title trustee, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)