logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1982. 9. 28. 선고 82누132 판결
[등록세부과처분취소][공1982.12.15.(694),1097]
Main Issues

(a) The meaning of the real estate registration of a corporation in a large city, which is subject to heavy registration tax;

B. Whether the provision of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act is against the Constitution’s provision on equal rights or the principle of equality in taxation (negative)

Summary of Judgment

A. The purpose of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to impose heavy taxation on the registration of acquisition of real estate, which is naturally required by a corporation for the performance of its purpose of business in a large city, such as office or factory facilities, etc. which are continuously and permanently used for the purpose of business in the large city. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal that the case of the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act is on the registration of real estate due to the establishment of a branch, etc.

B. The provisions of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for heavy taxation on real estate following the establishment of a juristic person in a large city, the establishment of a branch office or a branch office, and the relocation of the principal office or a branch office of a juristic person into a large city in order to prevent the population expansion caused by the inflow of population into a large city, does not violate the principle of equal taxation or the principle of equal taxation, which provides for heavy taxation on real estate after the establishment and transfer of the establishment.

[Reference Provisions]

(a) Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102(2) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu98 delivered on July 28, 1981, 82Nu42 delivered on June 22, 1982

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Defendant-Appellee

Attorney Kim Dongdaemun-gu et al.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu355 delivered on February 18, 1982

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 6

Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act provides that the registration of real estate shall be five times the tax rates provided for in Article 131 of the same Act in the case of the establishment of the main office or a branch office within a large city or the transfer of the main office to a branch office or a branch office within a large city. Article 138 (1) 3 of the same Act provides that the registration of real estate transfer from the establishment of the main office or the branch office within a large city and the relocation of the main office or the branch office within a large city shall be 30 times the above 6th anniversary of its establishment, the above 3th anniversary of its establishment, establishment, establishment, and relocation of the 3th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of its establishment, establishment, and relocation of the 3th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of its establishment, the above 19th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of its establishment, establishment of the 3th anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 1st anniversary of the above 1st of the answer.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that an individual’s dignity and personality shall be respected, and that all citizens shall be equal in front of the law, and the fundamental equality of both husband and wife’s rights and training, the principle of ordinary elections, the principle of equal opportunity for education, the prohibition of privilege pursuant to the preceding Decree, etc., shall not be discriminated in all areas of political, economic, social and cultural life by gender, religion or social status, and shall not be established in any form, nor shall a system of social special class be established in any form. Meanwhile, the principle of equality of taxation or the principle of fair tax burden should not be regarded as a violation of Article 18(1)3 of the Constitution, since the taxpayer’s tax capacity is to ensure fair burden by all aspects of taxation, such as various tax rates, non-taxation, etc., such as establishment of a corporation in a large city, establishment of its branch or branch office in a large city, relocation of its principal office or branch office into the large city, establishment of the real estate register, establishment of the principal office or branch office, and establishment of the real estate after relocation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문