The validity of the prompt disposition in case where the registration tax is excluded from the subject of the heavy registration tax due to the revision of the Presidential Decree after the liability to pay the heavy registration tax becomes final.

If the plaintiff established with the real estate rental business, etc. for its business purpose in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a large city, newly constructed a commercial building on or around November 14, 1978, and registered the preservation of ownership on December 29 of the same year and imposed the registration tax and the defense tax accordingly pursuant to Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Enforcement Decree, which was enforced by the defendant, if the above Enforcement Decree was amended by Presidential Decree No. 9702 of December 31, 1979, and the acquisition of the market building was excluded from the heavy taxable object, the above disposition by the defendant is not in violation of the principle of the fairness of taxation, so long as the above disposition by the defendant does not violate the principle of discretion, and it is therefore a legitimate disposition.

Article 138(1) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3160), Article 101(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702), Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9439)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of registration tax of KRW 9,500,737 against the plaintiff on March 15, 1981 and the imposition of KRW 1,900,149 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant imposed registration tax on the plaintiff on March 15, 1981 by the 10th 10th 5th 7th 7th 7th 5th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 7th 196th 7th 7th 8th 196th 1st 2th 5th 5th 5th 196th 5th 16th 196th 2th 196th 2th 196th 2th 196th 5th 196th 3th 196th 2th 96th 197, second 9th 2th 96th 197, second 9th 197, second 9th 2th 9th 197, second 9th 2th 197. 3rd 14th 197.

As the above market building is a market building under the provisions of the Market Act, it was legislated to be excluded from the above heavy taxation object by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act of December 31, 1979. The purpose of legislation, such as Article 138 of the Local Tax Act, is to prevent urban population and to ensure it, while the market's legislation purpose is to exclude the above provisions from the heavy taxation object as incidental facilities to urban life, and the above provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act should be excluded from the above 19% of the above 10% of the above 10% of the above 10% of the above 10% of the above 10% of the 197% of the above 10% of the 197% of the above 10% of the 17% of the above 10% of the 10% of the above 1% of the 1% of the above 1% of the 1% of the above 1% of the above 1% of the above 1% of the above 1% of the above 1%'s of the above 1% of the above provisions.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s new construction of the above building and its preservation of ownership was carried out only four years and six months after the establishment of the Plaintiff corporation. It is difficult to find that the above building was originally constructed under the market conditions such as the formation of housing prices, and such conditions have not been created until 1978. As such, it shall be newly constructed after 1980, which would have been likely to create the market. It is the first 7 years old market for the above new construction of the building and its preservation of ownership was not carried out by the first 7 years old market. It is hard to find that the Plaintiff still did not cooperate with the first 6 years old market for the above new construction of the building and the second 7 years old market for the first 6 years old market for the first 7 years old market for the first 6 years old market for the first 6 years old market for the first 6 years old market for the second 6 years old market for the second 6 years old market for the first 6 years old market for the second 6 years old market for the second 6 years old market for the above reasons.

In addition, according to the provisions of Article 5 of the Act on Temporary Measures for the Promotion of Specific Districts, which had been enforced at the time of the construction of the above building, the plaintiff shall be exempted from registration tax for the specific buildings under Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the same Act, which are buildings constructed by the redevelopment project within the re-development promotion district or buildings constructed by the construction plan of a specific house readjustment district. The above building is a specific building under the same Act, and it should be exempted from registration tax, and even at this point, it is alleged to the purport that the above disposition is unlawful. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is groundless, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above building is a specific building constructed

Therefore, the above disposition taken by the defendant is a disposition lawfully taken pursuant to Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The plaintiff's claim of this case disputing this disposition is groundless, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's charge as the losing party.

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge)