The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on whether acquisition tax liability is established

A. Article 105 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a purchaser of real estate, etc. under paragraph (1). Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a purchaser of real estate, etc.

Article 73 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2251, Jul. 6, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon delegation under Article 111(7) of the former Local Tax Act provides that with respect to the timing of acquisition of objects of taxation of acquisition tax, the acquisition by succession for value under paragraph (1) shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of actual payment of balance (if the acquisition does not fall under such date, the remaining payment date under the contract). The main sentence of Article 111(3) of the former Local Tax Act provides that if a registration is made

In full view of the language and text of the aforementioned relevant provisions and the fact that “ de facto acquisition” under Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act generally fails to meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership such as registration, but it refers to the case where the purchase price is fully paid prior to the registration of transfer of ownership, a tax liability for acquisition tax pursuant to “ de facto acquisition” under Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act is established on the date of actual balance payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du10343, Jan. 13, 2005; 2005Du1360, May 11, 2007; 2013Du18018, Jan. 23, 2014).