2016Du55643 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing acquisition tax, etc.

A social service Korea Co., Ltd.

Do Governor of Gyeongnam

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Nu30080 Decided September 13, 2016

November 9, 2017

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor against the Defendant are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Article 8(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”) provides that a place for tax payment of a vehicle shall be a copy of the place for tax payment under the Automobile Management Act. However, if a place for registration differs from a place for tax payment, the place for tax payment shall be the place for tax payment.

Article 2(2) of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that "the meaning of "place of use" shall be defined as "the place where the owner of a motor vehicle mainly stores, manages, or uses the motor vehicle, and is prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs." Article 3(1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be defined as "the place where the owner of a motor vehicle is an individual, and if the owner of a motor vehicle is a corporation, the owner of a motor vehicle shall submit documents proving the reason to the registration authority.

In addition to the language and structure of the relevant provision, comprehensively considering the legislative intent of the provision of this case, the background leading up to the amendment of the provision of this case, the legal nature of registration of automobile, and various circumstances such as the place of tax payment of acquisition tax, if a corporation obtains registration of automobile from the registration authority to place of tax use the place of tax other than the location of its principal office, the place of tax payment, which is the place of tax payment, should be seen as "the place of tax payment" not the principal place of the corporation, but the place of tax payment, which is recorded in the register of automobile. (1) Since acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that recognizes and imposes the capacity to pay acquisition tax, it should be considered as the place of tax payment based on the date of acquisition in principle, and it is necessary for the local tax authority to determine the place of tax payment as the place of tax payment, which is an objective and rational standard of tax payment, as well as the place of tax payment, under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act that has jurisdiction over the place of tax payment.

(2) In addition, as seen earlier, the provisions of this case only stipulate the place of payment of acquisition tax of a vehicle as “the place of registration under the Automobile Management Act.” However, as the Local Tax Act was amended on December 27, 2010 by Act No. 10416, the proviso was newly established that “where the place of registration differs from the place of payment, the place of payment shall be the place of the place of payment.” This is different from that of the previous registration authority having jurisdiction over the place of payment. Unlike the previous registration could only have been possible at the registration authority having jurisdiction over the place of payment, the provisions of Article 5(2) of the Automobile Registration Decree amended by Presidential Decree No. 21789, Oct. 19, 2009; it was possible to deal with the affairs concerning the registration of a vehicle from June 1, 2010 to another registration authority which does not have jurisdiction over the place of payment of the relevant vehicle. In other words, even if “the place of registration actually took place” and “the criteria for the acquisition tax of a newly established vehicle may change.

(3) On the other hand, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Decree on the Automobile Management Act, which borrows the concept of "the place of use" under the provision of this case, provides that "the owner of a motor vehicle shall keep, manage, or use the motor vehicle mainly, and is a certain place prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs." However, Article 3 (1) of the former Rules on the Registration of Motor Vehicles, which specifically states the meaning thereof, provides that the owner of a motor vehicle shall be "the owner's registered domicile" (Article 1) if the owner of a motor vehicle is an individual, and "the principal office of the corporation" (Article 2 subparagraph 2) if the owner of a motor vehicle is a corporation.

In addition, according to Article 3(2) of the former Rules on Registration of Motor Vehicles, if the owner of a motor vehicle is a corporation, a place other than the main office may be applied to the place of use, and in order to be recognized as a place of use, a document proving the reason must be submitted to the registration authority. In such a case, Article 27(2) of the former Rules on Registration of Motor Vehicles only stipulates a business registration certificate or a certified copy of corporate register as a document to be submitted, and the registration authority confirms the submitted business registration certificate or a certified copy of corporate register and registers

As can be seen, the relevant laws and regulations regarding registration of automobiles also demand the place of use to de facto change the place of resident registration, etc., and does not require the place of use to have any human and physical facilities or to submit relevant materials, in cases where a request is made to place of use other than the main place of business, such as a

(4) Furthermore, at the time of acquiring a vehicle, the place where the vehicle is stored, managed, or used is not determined. As such, the place of tax payment of the vehicle cannot be determined based on this. The place of tax payment, which is the place of tax payment of the owner of the vehicle, or the place of principal office, which is the basic place of tax payment of the owner of the vehicle, is more likely than the place where the vehicle actually stores, manages, or uses the vehicle. At the time of acquiring the vehicle, the definition of the place of tax payment under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Decree on the place of tax payment is interpreted as the same meaning. Therefore, the place of tax payment, other than the principal place of a corporation under Article 3(2) of the former Decree on the Registration of Motor Vehicles, is not the place where the owner of the vehicle actually

In addition, the place of payment of acquisition tax shall be determined at the latest at the time of reporting and paying acquisition tax. As such, the circumstances such as where the vehicle was actually stored, managed, or used after filing and paying the vehicle acquisition tax, in principle, cannot serve as the basis for determining the place of payment of acquisition tax. On the other hand, the initial purpose of legislation is to avoid excessive administrative expenses by determining the place of payment in accordance with objective and uniform standards. In fact, the issue of where the vehicle is to be mainly stored, managed, or used is facing the difficult problem to be determined at a certain point or a period. Moreover, as to the “place of the principal office,” which is the place of individual’s domicile, is the place of storage, management, or use, where the vehicle is mainly stored, or used. However, there is no ground for treating the vehicle differently only to the place of use other than the principal office of a corporation.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. (1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of automobile facility leasing business, etc., and its head office is Seoul, and each branch office is located in Busan, Incheon, Changwon, and Goyang (hereinafter “each branch of this case”).

(2) On January 3, 2011, to June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of an automobile for the purpose of leasing a facility (hereinafter referred to as “lease”) with the location of each branch of the instant case, and around that time, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle to the Do Governor, the head of the Busan Metropolitan City, the head of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the head of the Changwon-gu, the head of the Changwon-gu, the head of the Changwon-gu, and the head of the Yangyang-si City, the head of the Si, and the acquisition tax on the instant leased vehicle. (3) However, on September 10, 2012, the Defendant did not correspond to the place of the Plaintiff’s main office at the time of acquiring the instant leased vehicle pursuant to Article 3(1)2 of the former Automobile Registration Rules, and the Defendant was delegated the Plaintiff’s right to impose the acquisition tax on the leased vehicle.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff’s respective branches of this case are recognized to place of use by the registration authority, and the respective branches of this case are indicated to the place of use in the register of automobile, barring special circumstances, such as the registration becomes null and void or revoked automatically, the place of use, which is the place of payment of the acquisition tax of the leased vehicle,

D. Nevertheless, the court below presumed that “the place of use,” which is the place of payment of acquisition tax of a vehicle owned by a corporation, refers to a place where a corporation actually stores, manages, or uses or plans to use the vehicle at the time of the actual acquisition of the vehicle, and where the main office of the relevant corporation or a place equipped with human and physical facilities to the extent that it is possible to store, manage, or use the vehicle, is not “the place of use” as stated in the register of vehicles. The court below held that each of the instant branches did not have human and physical facilities to the extent that it is possible to manage the leased vehicle of this case, and that the location of the Plaintiff’s main office should be deemed as the place of payment of acquisition tax of the leased vehicle of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the place of payment of acquisition tax of the vehicle of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the Plaintiff’s ground

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

As seen earlier, since the place of tax payment of the lease vehicle of this case is each of the instant location, there is no authority to impose tax on the Defendant. Accordingly, the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor asserting the legality of imposition of penalty tax on a different premise are without merit without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Cho Jae-chul