(a) Where a corporation belonging to a category of business to be excluded from the registration tax installs its branch office after the registration of the real estate, the starting point of the grace period for heavy application;

(b) Whether a person is excluded from heavy taxation even if he/she satisfies the requirements for a type of business to be excluded from heavy taxation after establishing a branch office and the starting point of the grace period;

A. Under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 101 (1) 8 and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 101 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993), the requirements for taxation of registration tax on real estate establishment and establishment of a branch office in a large city meet both the requirements for real estate registration and establishment of a corporation or a branch office in a large city. The tax liability is established when meeting all the requirements. For corporations which establish a corporation or establish a branch office that falls under the category of business excluded from the scope of business in a large city, the requirements for taxation of registration tax must be excluded from the heavy exemption from the heavy exemption from the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city without any justifiable reason after the establishment of real estate for one year.

B. The registration of real estate does not meet the requirements of the category of business to be excluded from heavy taxation at the time of the establishment of a branch after the establishment of a branch, or if the requirements are met after the establishment of a branch after the establishment of a branch due to the authorization procedure, it shall be considered to be excluded from heavy taxation performed within the grace period under Article 101(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. In this case, the starting point of the grace period for one year shall be the registration date for the real estate registration acquired within five years after the establishment of a branch office under the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. However, if the registration of

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993); Articles 101 (1) 8 and 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 101 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993); Articles 4 and 15 of the Wholesale and Retail Trade Promotion Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Haweg Distribution Corporation, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Suwon-si Head of Suwon-si, Attorneys Ji-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu2379 delivered on September 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are also examined.

1. Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that registration falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be imposed heavy when registration is made with respect to the intermediate registration for a branch office in a large city. The provision provides that the same shall not apply to the category of business prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 3 provides that real estate registration shall be established in a large city as one of the subject matters of heavy taxation and subsequent real estate registrations shall be established and established. Article 101 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "Do and Retail Business Promotion Act" shall be excluded from heavy taxation pursuant to the above proviso. Paragraph (2) provides that real estate registration shall be excluded from establishment of a juristic person within one year from the date of its establishment or registration for the purpose of using the same type of business without any justifiable reasons. Article 138 (1) of the same Act provides that real estate shall be excluded from establishment or establishment of a juristic person within one year from the date of its establishment or establishment without any justifiable reason; Article 138 (2) provides that the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the real estate shall be excluded from establishment of a juristic person.

In addition, even if the real estate registration does not meet the requirements of the category of business to be excluded from heavy taxation at the time of the establishment of a branch, or if the requirements are met after the establishment of a branch due to the procedure of authorization and permission, it shall be considered to be excluded from heavy taxation performed within the grace period under Article 101 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In this case, the starting point of the grace period for one year shall be the starting point of registration for the real estate registration acquired within five years after the establishment of the branch in the latter part of Article 138 (1) 3 of the same Act as above. However, if the real estate registration is prior, the starting point of the establishment of a branch shall be the starting point.

For this reason, if a branch is established at the time one year or more after the registration date, there is no room for exclusion from heavy taxation after the expiration of the grace period. This goes against the legislative intent of the above Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for exclusion from heavy taxation, and it goes against the principle of equity in the case of real estate registration after the establishment of the branch, and the heavy requirement is interpreted as satisfying the taxation requirements of heavy registration tax when the branch is established after the registration date (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10619 delivered on May 12, 1992).

2. According to the facts found by the court below, the plaintiff, as part of the plan to establish and operate the department store in local areas including the Seoul Metropolitan area, secured the land of this case from around 1987 to around 1990 as the site. The plaintiff newly constructed the building of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 18, 191. The head of Suwon Tax Office had registered the business as a juristic person and started to establish and operate the branch office. The plaintiff did not have experience in the management of the department store, and until he had an independent management ability, had a large-scale retail store operated in the form of management entrustment, and the above company opened the department store of this case with the permission of large-scale retail store under Article 15 of the Do and Retail Promotion Act with the permission of large-scale retail store established in the name of the above company and opened the department store of this case with the above 80% of the store of this case and 20% of its management form, and acquired all employees belonging to the above company from the above plaintiff 216.

3. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

4. In addition, if the facts are as above, the plaintiff established a branch for the purpose of large retail business after the registration of the real estate of the land and building of this case and used the land and building of this case directly for the business concerned after obtaining permission for the establishment of a large retail store under the Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act within the grace period of one year thereafter, as stated in the main sentence of Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 101 (1) 8 and Article 101 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the above Article 138 (1) of the same Act shall meet the requirements excluded from the subject of heavy registration tax, etc. under Article 138 (1) 8 and Article 101 (2) of the same Act. Thus, the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful because

5. Therefore, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below, the reasoning of the judgment below is insufficient, and the part of the judgment below is inappropriate. However, since the real estate registration of this case is not subject to the heavy registration tax, it does not affect the result of this case, and it is returned to the fact that there is no reason to argue in another opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)