A. Whether the imposition disposition by the taxation administrative agency was made at the time of voluntary payment of the registration tax (affirmative)

(b) Whether founders of small and medium enterprises in rural areas shall obtain approval of a business plan under Article 21 (1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act to obtain various assistance (affirmative)

A. In full view of the provisions of Articles 124 and 125 of the Local Tax Act, Article 90(1) and 90(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, when a person liable for tax payment voluntarily pays the registration tax to the Si/Gun (or the Si/Gun’s treasury that is the agency that is the agency that imposes the registration tax), the taxpayer and the administrative agency should be deemed to have committed a confirm administrative act that determines the registered tax amount at the time of the payment, i.e., imposing authority that determines specific tax obligations.

B. According to the provisions of Articles 21, 22, and 23 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, approval of a business plan for the founders of small and medium enterprises in agricultural and fishing villages is not a voluntary procedure but an essential procedure for obtaining various assistance under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act.

Articles 124 and 125 of the Local Tax Act, Article 90 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 21, 22, and 23 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act

Co., Ltd. dialogue industry

Superintendent of the Gun;

1. Of the imposition of registration tax of KRW 2,043,160 against the Plaintiff on February 17, 1987 and the said tax of KRW 408,630 and the said tax of KRW 1,743,600, and the said tax of KRW 348,720, the amount exceeding the said tax of KRW 340 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Four minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

Of the imposition of registration tax of KRW 2,043,160 against the Plaintiff on February 17, 1987 and the imposition of KRW 408,630 as registration tax of KRW 871,80 and KRW 174,360 as registration tax of KRW 408,630, the part of which exceeds that of KRW 174,360 shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The defendant argues to the effect that it is unlawful for the plaintiff to seek revocation on the premise that the defendant imposed the registration tax of this case and the defense tax of this case on his own in accordance with the relevant provisions under the Local Tax Act for the purpose of making a registration.

According to Articles 124 and 125 of the Local Tax Act, where matters concerning the acquisition, transfer, change or extinguishment of property rights and other rights are registered or recorded in the public register, registration tax shall be imposed by the Do having jurisdiction over the seat of the property which is registered or registered as of the date of registration, the registry holder's domicile, the relevant office or place of business, etc. In accordance with Article 90 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the registration tax shall be paid to the Si/Gun or the relevant Si/Gun or the relevant Si/Gun/Gu's depository or agency having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment with a statement of payment attached. According to Article 90 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the Si/Gun/Gu treasury collects the registration tax pursuant to Article 124 (1) of the same Act, it shall issue one “paid” notification for registration, one “paid” certificate, and one receipt for taxpayer's custody without delay to the relevant Si/Gun.

In full view of the above provisions, when a taxpayer voluntarily pays the registration tax in principle, so if a taxpayer voluntarily pays the registration tax to the Si/Gun (or the Si/Gun/Gu treasury which is its agent) which is an administrative agency imposing the registration tax, it shall be deemed that the payer and the tax administrative agency are the confirmative administrative act that determines the registration tax amount to be paid by the taxpayer at the time of the payment, i.e. the imposing authority that determines specific tax liabilities.

Therefore, even in the case of voluntary declaration and payment of the registration tax, etc. of this case, since there exists an administrative disposition as a disposition of imposition, the defendant's defense is without merit since it can seek revocation as an appeal.

2. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as set forth in Gap evidence 3 (sales contract), Eul evidence 6 (factory registration certificate), Eul evidence 10 (Receipt), and Eul evidence 10 (Receipt), the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea acquired the site and buildings for factory as set forth in the attached sheet owned by the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter the real estate of this case), its accessory machinery, apparatus, etc. by auction on March 18, 1985. On November 29, 1986, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the Industrial Bank of Korea again from the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea and applied for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case, the tax base on February 17, 1987 shall be calculated according to the taxation standard amount under the Local Tax Act, and the amount of tax shall be calculated by applying the registration tax amount of 2,043,160 won and the amount of tax shall be 408,630 won.

First, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from a small or medium start-up enterprise in a rural area as stipulated in Article 25(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act, which registered as a business operator on November 5, 1986, within 20 years from the date of its establishment, as seen earlier, within 2 years from the date of its establishment, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate as seen above, and registered it as a business property, and thus, the tax amount equivalent to 50/100 of the registration tax should be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 84(2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, although the Defendant did not reduce or exempt the above tax amount. Second, even if the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 58,120,000, not based on the actual transaction price,

First, we examine the plaintiff's first argument.

Article 25 (1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that a technology-intensive small and medium enterprise and a founder of a small and medium enterprise in a rural area may be exempted from or reduced from corporate tax, income tax, acquisition tax, property tax, and registration tax under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. Article 84 (2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that registration of business property acquired by a small and medium enterprise start-up enterprise within two years from the date of start-up in order to conduct the business concerned and registration of establishment of a small and medium enterprise shall be exempted from the tax amount equivalent to 50/100 of registration tax, so that the tax amount equivalent to 50/

Meanwhile, Article 21 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act provides that a founder of a technology-intensive small and medium enterprise and a rural community area as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may commence his business after preparing a business plan under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and obtaining approval from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu (However, the proviso of Article 22 (4) of the same Act provides that a founder who has obtained approval or designation under the provisions of Articles 10 and 18 of the Agricultural and Fishing Villages Income Development Promotion Act shall be deemed to have obtained approval of the above business plan). Article 22 of the same Act provides that when a founder obtains approval of a business plan under the provisions of Article 21, he shall be deemed to have received a disposition such as various reports, permits, cancellation, licenses, consent or decision of the so-called Environmental Administrative Relations Act as stated in the above subparagraphs (paragraph (1) and Article 21 (1) of the same Act shall not be deemed to have obtained approval or inspection on the business plan for a factory which has obtained approval of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu as stated in the business plan or approval of the project plan.

The second argument of the plaintiff is examined.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 130(1), (2), (3), and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act, the value at the time of acquisition as the tax base of registration tax under Article 130(1) means, in principle, the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of real estate at the time of acquisition. Paragraph 2 of Article 130 provides that the registrant shall report the tax base under paragraph 1, i.e., the value at the time of acquisition, if there is no return or if the reported value falls short of the standard market value, the tax base shall be determined based on the standard market value. Meanwhile, in such a case, the acquisition value is clearly expressed in each subparagraph of Article 111(5), so it shall be determined by the actual acquisition value regardless of the declaration of acquisition. Thus, even if the registrant filed a return under Article 130(2) after acquiring the real estate which is subject to registration tax, if the acquisition value is verified by a contract, etc., the actual tax base of acquisition value at the time of acquisition shall be determined as the above 000.

Furthermore, when calculating the legitimate amount of tax to be borne by the Plaintiff, the registration tax amount of KRW 1,743,600 (58,120,000 x 30/1000 x 348,720 (1,743,60 x 20/100) and the defense tax amount of KRW 348,720 (1,743,600 x 20/100) is to be revoked as unlawful.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as well as the costs of lawsuit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation.

Judges Kim So-ho (Presiding Judge)