[1] The meaning of a branch or a sub-branch in real estate registration due to the establishment of a branch or a sub-branch which is a requirement for heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act

[2] The case holding that a case constitutes a branch under Article 138 (1) of the former Local Tax Act

[1] According to the provisions of Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 11 of Jul. 23, 1998), a branch or sub-office in the real estate registration of the establishment of a branch or sub-office that is subject to heavy registration tax refers to a place of business registered under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, in which the office or sub-office continues to be equipped with human and material facilities and a place of simple manufacturing and processing without any business activity is excluded, and the "place of business or business" refers to a place where the business is conducted with physical facilities necessary to carry out.

[2] The case holding that it constitutes a branch under Article 138 (1) of the former Local Tax Act

[1] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of December 27, 1993), Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of July 16, 1998), Article 55-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 11 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of July 23, 1998) / [2] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of December 27, 1993), Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of July 16, 1998), Article 15-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of July 15, 23, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5815 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 941) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1029 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2051) Supreme Court Decision 98Du2737 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1544)

Western Business Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun Law Office, Attorneys Kang Ji-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gyeyang-si (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu9860 delivered on February 5, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same), Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993), and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 602 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply), the term "branch or branch office in the real estate registration pursuant to the establishment of a branch or branch office which is subject to heavy registration tax means a business place registered under the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, where its business or business is conducted continuously with human and material facilities, and the term "business or business is continuously conducted with human and material facilities" means a place where the business is conducted with such facilities and is actually conducted with physical facilities under the direction and supervision of the corporation, 1970.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on August 21, 1992 that the plaintiff was awarded the real estate of this case on January 29, 1993 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 22, 1993, that on October 13, 1993, the plaintiff registered the establishment of a branch office of this case on September 4, 199, and that on September 17, 1993, the location of the above real estate, the type of business, the manufacturing business, and the opening of the business was registered under the Value-Added Tax Act as of September 17, 1993, and that the above 1 and 2, and the above 1 and 9 of the sales offices of this case were composed of 6 non-party 1 and non-party 2's sales offices and 9 of the above 9-party 2's sales offices and 9-party 1 and the above 9-party 2's sales offices and 9-party 2's sales offices were composed.

Considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of "office or workplace", or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of "office or workplace.

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)