In a case where a purchaser who concluded a sale contract for real estate and paid all the purchase money prior to the registration of transfer of ownership completed the registration of ownership based on the sale after the fact, is liable to pay new acquisition tax on the date separate from the liability to pay acquisition tax established on the balance payment date (negative) and whether the foregoing legal doctrine applies likewise to a case where a person who paid all the purchase money prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of a title trustee pursuant to a three-party registered title trust agreement with the lapse of the grace period prescribed in

Article 105(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3757, Dec. 24, 1984; hereinafter “Act”), Article 111(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 73(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12573, Dec. 31, 1988; hereinafter “acquisition” under Article 105(1) of the Act includes all cases of acquiring real estate under the name of a title trustee based on the form of transfer of ownership. In light of the fact that a person who actually purchased real estate under the name of a title trustee fails to meet the original requirements for acquisition of real estate under the name of a title trustee, but meets the actual requirements for acquisition of real estate under the name of a title trustee, such as the payment of acquisition tax, on the date of acquisition under the name of a title trustee, and the legal principle as to the remaining acquisition of real estate under the Act is established.

Article 105(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 3757, Dec. 24, 1984; see current Article 7(1) and (2)); Article 111(7) of the former Local Tax Act (see current Article 10(7)); Article 73(1) and (3) (see current Article 20(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12573, Dec. 31, 198; see current Article 20(11)); Article 11 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 200Du7896 delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1848) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9311 Delivered on July 12, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1978)

Plaintiff

E-Government Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu16334 decided November 24, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3757 of Dec. 24, 1984; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a purchaser of real estate, etc.; and Article 105(2) provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a purchaser of real estate, etc., even if the acquisition of real estate, etc. does not comply with registration, etc. under the Civil Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

In addition, Article 73 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12573, Dec. 31, 1988) upon delegation of Article 111(7) of the Act provides that acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been acquired on the payment date of the balance under the contract, or on the payment date of the balance, in case of acquisition by onerous succession under paragraph (1) of the same Article.

In light of the aforementioned language and text of the relevant provisions, acquisition tax includes all cases of acquiring real estate, etc. in accordance with the form prior to ownership transfer, which is a kind of distribution tax, based on which the initial source of taxation is recognized and imposed. “ de facto acquisition” under Article 105(1) of the Act refers to cases where: (a) does not meet the formalities for acquisition of ownership such as registration; (b) but meets the substantive requirements for acquisition of ownership such as payment of the price (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du7896, Jun. 28, 2002; 200Du9311, Jul. 12, 2002; and (c) where the purchaser, who entered into a sales contract for real estate and paid all purchase amounts prior to the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee, becomes liable to pay acquisition tax under the name of the title trustee on the date subsequent to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee; and (d) such legal doctrine applies to the real estate remaining after the date of registration of ownership transfer under the title transfer.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the acquisition tax liability cannot be deemed to have been newly established on the ground that the plaintiff purchased each real estate of this case from the non-party 1, the seller on May 8, 1981, and then completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of non-party 2, the title trustee under the three-party registered title trust agreement, at the latest, by paying the purchase price in full and acquiring it in fact on June 23, 1981, and the plaintiff cancelled the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff on January 2, 2007, which was null and void upon the expiration of the grace period under the Real Estate Real Name Act, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff on the ground of the above sale. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

Supreme Court Decision 98Da12171 Decided September 3, 1999 cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)