The case holding that it constitutes a new construction of a factory under Article 84-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to taxation of registration tax, in the case where it purchased a food production factory in the discontinuance of business and removed the production facilities and used as a factory for structural metal products

The Plaintiff, a company established with the business purpose of sanitary and heating facility work, was in fact in the discontinuance of business since several years, and part of the factory, prior to the sale to the Plaintiff, leased the construction material manufacturing and selling business to another company, and removed the production facilities installed in that part. After the sales contract with the Plaintiff, part of the production facilities were sold to the Plaintiff, and installed manufacturing facilities for structural metal sales products. Since then, if the Plaintiff used the above real estate as a production factory, such as culp equipment and culp disinfection equipment, etc., the Plaintiff’s purchase of the above factory does not constitute the comprehensive acquisition of existing factory under Article 47 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act or the construction of a new factory under Article 84-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 47 subparag. 7 and 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

United Kingdom Facility Corporation

Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8516 delivered on May 9, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the court below's decision, the court below concluded a sales contract on the site of an food production plant and its ground building operated by the plaintiff with the non-party Kang Jae-hee on November 28, 1986 and completed the registration of ownership transfer after fully paying the price therefor on December 30, 1986. The above Gangwon-hee operated the above food production plant from August 3, 1972 to operate the above food production plant, and was in de facto in the situation of closure by suspending the production of edible milk since before the above real estate was sold, and on April 1, 1985, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the removal of part of the above real estate from the above real estate by an agreement for the rental period of two years, and the plaintiff purchased part of the production facilities from the manufacturing facilities to the plaintiff on December 10, 1986 after the sales contract with the plaintiff was made, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the manufacturing equipment and the records.

According to the above facts of the judgment below, the plaintiff's purchase of the above factory shall not be deemed to constitute a comprehensive acquisition of existing factory under subparagraph 7 of Article 47 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act or a change of business type under subparagraph 8 of the same Article, and it shall not be deemed to constitute a new factory under Article 84-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the measures that the court below maintained the disposition of acquisition tax and registration tax in this case applying the heavy taxation rate to the same purport

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 Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)