Daedong Bank Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Cho Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Busan Gu

July 19, 1991

1. The imposition of the registration tax of KRW 103,200,000 and the defense tax of KRW 20,640,000 against the plaintiff as of July 10, 1990 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

On March 8, 1990, the Plaintiff acquired 1,266 square meters from 26.9 square meters in Busan-dong, Busan-dong and 1886.71 square meters in the annual building area of its ground and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and paid registration tax amount of 129,000,000 won in accordance with the general tax rate for the Defendant on that day, and 25,800,000 won in the defense industry. On June 11 of the same year, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of the above branch office of the Plaintiff bank with the location of the above branch office on the 14th day of the same month, and the date of the establishment of the above 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act was 0,000,000 won subtracting the above tax amount paid voluntarily at the general tax rate of 1,000,000 won x 3,000,000 won among the registration tax amount to be paid voluntarily under the above general tax rate of x 16,301,0005,0000.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's imposition of the above additional tax is legitimate as long as the plaintiff paid the remainder of the registration tax as above on June 14 of the same month, which is the date of the establishment registration of the main office of the plaintiff bank, rather than the date of establishment of the branch office, and even if the main office of the plaintiff bank is established, the date of establishment of the main office of the plaintiff bank shall be June 11 of the same year, which is the date of establishment registration of the main office. Accordingly, the plaintiff's obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax under the heavy tax rate arises on the date of establishment of the branch office, and therefore the defendant's imposition of the above additional

First of all, the time when the obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax under the heavy tax rate occurs.

Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "when making a registration falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the tax rate shall be five times the corresponding rates prescribed in Articles 131 and 137." The subparagraph 3 provides that "the establishment of a juristic person within a large city and the establishment of a branch office or a branch office and the main office of a juristic person." The provision provides that "registration of real estate following the relocation of a branch office or a branch office or a branch office and registration of real estate after its establishment, establishment, or transfer." The former part of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11751, Aug. 26, 1985) provides that "the establishment of a juristic person and a branch office or a branch office or a branch office under the relocation of a branch office or a branch office or a branch office, etc., shall take place within the first large city and a juristic person shall be deemed to have no obligation to file registration taxes after the voluntary declaration and payment of real estate within the second large city."

Moreover, the penalty tax is imposed in order to ensure the faithful fulfillment of the obligation under the tax-related Acts. Therefore, the imposition of the penalty tax may not be made in light of the purpose or nature of the penalty tax in light of the fact that the imposition of the penalty tax is not made on the ground that the taxpayer did not voluntarily pay the registration tax under the heavy tax rate at the time of registration of an uncertain real estate.

The following points shall be considered as the time of establishment:

Article 102 (2) (latter part) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "a branch, etc." means an office or a place of business as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 436 of September 2, 1985) provides that "an office or a place of business as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs" means a place of business registered under the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, where a business or a business is conducted continuously with human and physical facilities." In this case, in full view of the purport of the argument in each of the above items, subparagraph 1-2, subparagraph 2, subparagraph 9-1, and subparagraph 2, subparagraph 9-1, and subparagraph 2, Article 102-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act provides that "a branch, etc. shall be established on June 14, 1990 on the day one of the commencement of business.

Therefore, the payment of the remaining registration tax after the deduction of the tax voluntarily paid by the general tax rate from the registration tax amount based on the heavy tax rate on the registration of the above real estate on June 14, 1990 constitutes the case where the obligation to voluntarily pay the registration tax under the Local Tax Act is faithfully fulfilled. Accordingly, the disposition imposing the above additional tax by the defendant is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

September 6, 1991

Judges Ansan-gu (Presiding Judge)