Whether the actual acquisition price proved by a favorable judgment based on the constructive confession should be the tax base of the registration tax (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Article 130(3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 1988) and Article 82-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12573 of Dec. 31, 1988), in cases where the actual acquisition price is proved by a final and conclusive judgment and the tax base of registration tax is the registration tax, the judgment in favor of the person concerned is not excluded. Therefore, in cases where the actual acquisition price is proved by a favorable judgment in favor of the person concerned, the actual acquisition price shall be the tax base.

Articles 111(5)3 and 130(3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 82-2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12573 of Dec. 31, 1988)

Kim Shin-Wil

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6855 delivered on December 7, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 130 (3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the tax base of registration tax on the acquisition (Article 111 (5) 3 of the same Act) for which the acquisition price is proved by the judgment prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the judgment (Article 111 (5) 3 of the same Act shall be de facto the acquisition price. Article 82-2 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12573 of Dec. 31, 1988; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the "written judgment: the written judgment is "a final and conclusive judgment (excluding reconciliation, renunciation, or recognition by civil procedure or administrative litigation)" and the above provision provides that the actual acquisition price shall be the tax base, so long as the acquisition price is proven by the judgment in favor of a person who has been declared as a person.

In the same purport, the court below is just to interpret that unless the judgment in favor of the constructive confession is explicitly excluded by the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, it cannot be deemed that the price entered in the original judgment is the actual acquisition price according to the macro-Evidence of Article 111 (5) 3 of the Local Tax Act, unless it is explicitly excluded by the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and it is not reasonable to determine that the price entered in the original judgment is the actual acquisition price, and there is no error of law such as

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 Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)