Whether the registration is subject to heavy taxation under the latter part of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, where a bank lends money to a customer and has completed a registration of establishment of a collateral for such security.

The "registration", which is subject to heavy taxation under the latter part of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, shall be deemed to be limited to the registration acquired by the corporation in order to use it directly for its business. Therefore, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage established by the bank as a security is not a registration acquired for its business but merely a registration made in addition to its business affairs, and is merely a registration made in addition to its business affairs

Article 138(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 131(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Jeju Bank, Inc.

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

The Defendant’s imposition of the registration tax of KRW 927,20, and the defense tax of KRW 185,440, and the registration tax of KRW 74,40, and KRW 14,880, and KRW 1,656,00 and KRW 331,200, respectively, and the registration tax of KRW 1,078,080 and KRW 215,616, and KRW 25,600, respectively, as of December 15, 1978, and the imposition of the registration tax of KRW 215,616, and KRW 25,60, and KRW 5,120, KRW 20, KRW 20, KRW 80, KRW 38,400, KRW 7, KRW 680, KRW 320, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 300, KRW 409, KRW 9696, and KRW 409, respectively, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment such as the text entry

The Defendant: (a) imposed each taxation disposition on the Plaintiff on the same registration tax as the order entry on the date of the order entry; (b) the distribution point on July 25, 1973; (c) the new branch on September 16, 1974; and (d) the fact that each of such branches was established on November 22, 1976; (d) there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the fact that the Plaintiff had already leased the amount of registration tax under the Local Tax Act to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a large city under the Local Tax Act; and (e) the registration tax rate of No. 6-2 (as stated in No. 1-4); (e) the evidence No. 7 through No. 9 (Taxation Details); and (e) the registration tax rate of No. 1-1000, the registration tax rate of No. 30, which was calculated on the basis of the remainder of the amount of registration tax calculated on the basis of the loan extended to the Plaintiff from the customers during the period from September 19, 19, 1977.

The plaintiff argues that the establishment registration of the above neighboring real estate by the plaintiff branch does not constitute the above real estate registration subject to heavy taxation. Thus, Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945) provides that the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city and the transfer of a corporation's head office, a principal office, a branch office or a branch office in a large city shall be more than five times the general registration rate (10/100 of the bond amount). The provision of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the scope of heavy registration tax and applicable standards shall be applied with the delegation of this Act (Presidential Decree No. 839) and the provision of Article 102 (1) 3 of the same Act provides that "real estate registration under the establishment and transfer of a corporation shall be used directly for the business of the corporation, and that the provision of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be limited to the scope of establishment and the provision of the same Act.

Thus, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage for which each of the above branches was completed by the plaintiff is merely a registration made in addition to the plaintiff's business activities, and cannot be said to be a real estate registration acquired by the plaintiff to use directly for his business. Therefore, the registration tax pursuant to Article 138 of the Local Tax Act and the defense tax may not be imposed on the above registration.

Therefore, it is deemed that the establishment registration of a mortgage on the root of this case made by the defendant as a security for a loan is subject to heavy taxation pursuant to Article 138 of the Local Tax Act, and the defendant's disposition of this case against the plaintiff is unlawful, so the claim for revocation of this case is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge) Kim Full-time Education