logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2007. 4. 12. 선고 2005두9491 판결
[취득세등부과처분취소][공2007.5.15.(274),737]
Main Issues

[1] The meaning of "acquisition of real estate" under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the person who succeeds to real estate through qualified acceptance under Article 1019 (3) of the Civil Code has the obligation to pay acquisition tax

Summary of Judgment

[1] The real estate acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that assumes the fact that it is the transfer of goods and imposes tax on the person who acquires real estate by using, earning, or disposing of the real estate. Thus, the "real estate acquisition tax" under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act is interpreted as including all cases of real estate acquisition in the form of transfer of ownership regardless of whether the person who acquired the real estate acquires the real estate in substance complete ownership or not.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the person who succeeds to real estate through qualified acceptance under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code has the obligation to pay acquisition tax

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act / [2] Articles 105 (1) and 110 subparagraph 3 of the Local Tax Act, Articles 1019 (3) and 1028 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Nu52 delivered on November 27, 1984 (Gong1985, 83) Supreme Court Decision 88Nu919 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong1988, 922) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7896 Delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1848)

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorneys Indun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellee

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one other

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu13631 delivered on July 12, 2005

Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The real estate acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that takes up the fact that it is the transfer of goods and imposes tax on the person who acquires the real estate on the basis of the fact that it is the transfer of goods and imposes taxes on the person who acquires the real estate on the basis of the use, profit, and disposal of the real estate. Thus, the "real estate acquisition" under Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act is interpreted to include all cases of real estate acquisition in the form of transfer of ownership regardless of whether the person who acquired the real estate acquires the real estate in substance complete ownership or not (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu52, Nov. 27, 1984; 8Nu919, Apr. 25, 198, etc.). Meanwhile, in case of so-called special approval under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Act, even if the inheritance liability exceeds the inherited property, it is not a case where the person who acquired the real estate is not jointly liable for the qualified acceptance and the inheritor's property in a limited state.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, after the death of the decedent who is the owner of the real estate subject to taxation in the judgment of the court of first instance, the first-class co-inheritors renounced their inheritance, and the deceased's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문