The meaning of "real estate registration" under Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

For the purpose of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the term "real estate registration" means the registration of real estate acquired before the juristic person or its branch office, etc. in connection with the establishment, etc., whether the requirements are satisfied and whether the whole real estate is to be used for the business concerned.

Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

5. Judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles

Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu13266,92Gu13273 decided September 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 138 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that registration tax shall be levied on real estate following the establishment of a juristic person in a large city and the establishment of a branch or sub-branch and the relocation of a branch or sub-branch into a large city. The registration of real estate following the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a juristic person or a branch under Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11751 of Aug. 26, 1985) means all the real estate acquired by the juristic person or a branch or sub-branch before its establishment, establishment, and transfer. In this context, all the registration of real estate in this context refers to the registration of real estate acquired before the juristic person or the branch or sub-branch meets the requirements of the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu556 of Jan. 31, 1989), and it shall not be interpreted that whether the whole real estate is used for the business concerned.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since it is proper for the plaintiff to sell electronic equipment and carry out real estate leasing business on September 2, 1987, the plaintiff acquired 735m2 in Nowon-gu ( Address omitted) on September 2, 198 (the date of registration is February 18, 191) and completed registration of preservation of ownership on September 8, 199 after completion of construction of one building on the 2nd underground floor and 8th floor reinforced concrete slab roof, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the 1st and second floor above, the plaintiff decided to directly establish a branch office on September 26, 1990 and completed registration of installation of the above 19m2 in the above building site for the reason that it is not proper for the court below to determine that the above part of the building site was legitimate before the establishment of the 1st and second floor and that it is not reasonable for the plaintiff to use the remaining part of the building site for the purpose of registration of preservation of ownership, regardless of its reason.

3. First of all, the theory of lawsuit is that the real estate of this case was not acquired by the plaintiff for the establishment of a branch, but acquired for the purpose of operating the lease business, or that the first and second floors were not leased, and therefore, the registration of the part other than the part of the branch subject to the taxation of the registration tax of this case was made without relation to the establishment of the above branch, and thus cannot be deemed a real estate registration in accordance with the establishment of the branch. However, upon examining the records, there is no evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion, and the court below did not directly decide on it, but did not contain the purpose of rejecting it, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

In addition, the theory of small taxation is that the plaintiff merely registered the retail business of the household goods and did not register the business for the leased part of the real estate of this case subject to the collection as the case did not have any personal and physical facilities for the purpose of the lease business. However, the heavy taxation requirement is determined depending on whether the registration of the real estate of this case is obtained with respect to the establishment of the plaintiff's branch, and it is not determined by whether the registration of the real estate of this case is obtained with respect to the leased part or whether it is equipped with facilities for the business. Therefore, it is groundless to argue that the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the different premise. All other arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)