Sejong Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan City and Jung-gu

August 4, 1994

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's imposition of acquisition tax (including additional tax) 60,00,000 won from time to time in 193 against the plaintiff on April 8, 1993 and the imposition of acquisition tax (including additional tax) 129,836,490 won from time to time in 193 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence 4-1 through 7, 10 through 22, 24, 25, Gap evidence 5 and 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 18, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On December 24, 198, the Plaintiff Company entered into a so-called management lease agreement with the Korea-Japan Development Corporation (hereinafter only “Korea-Japan Lease”) on four vessels, such as diesel 1, 3, and 9 purchased from the Korea-Japan Development Corporation (hereinafter “Korea-Japan Development Corporation”) on December 24, 198. On December 26, 196, the Plaintiff Company, the purpose of which is marine passenger transportation services, entered into an operation lease agreement with the Korea-Japan Development Corporation (hereinafter “Korea-Japan Development Corporation”), and entered into an operation lease agreement with the Plaintiff on December 30, 198, and subsequently, entered into an operation lease agreement on one vessel of Korea-Japan Development Corporation (hereinafter “Korea-Japan”) on December 30, 198, and operates a coastal passenger transport business by using it until now.

B. However, on January 18, 1989, the Plaintiff filed a return on acquisition tax with only the remaining tax base of KRW 337,937,937,00,00 for four vessels, such as the diesel No. 1, etc., or KRW 2,500,000 among them, on the ground that the acquisition value of the four vessels, such as the said diesel No. 1, etc., is liable for the payment of KRW 2,837,937,00,000, and paid the acquisition tax calculated with only the remaining tax base of KRW 337,937,00. The Plaintiff did not file any return

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff should pay the acquisition tax on four vessels, such as the diesel 1, etc., the Defendant: (b) calculated the acquisition tax base amount of KRW 337,937,937,00,000, the remainder of KRW 2,500,000, the acquisition tax base amount of KRW 10,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 5,409,854,000, and KRW 5,409,854,000, and KRW 21,639,410, respectively, the acquisition tax amount of KRW 108,197,080, KRW 21,639,410, respectively, as the tax base; and (c) notified the Plaintiff as the person imposing acquisition tax on July 19, 191.

D. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the imposition of acquisition tax against the plaintiff on February 19, 193, on the ground that the above vessel is the plaintiff only in the name of ownership on the register, but it is merely a vessel tenant under a lease contract, and that the actual owner is a lease, the above disposition to impose acquisition tax against the plaintiff was against the principle of substantial taxation, and as a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to revoke the imposition of acquisition tax against the plaintiff on February 19, 1993 on the ground that the disposition to revoke the imposition was unlawful because part of the matters required by the Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof were omitted in the tax payment notice, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is by the defendant

E. After that, on April 8, 1993, the Defendant calculated the tax amount in the same manner as above (c) again, by supplementing the above procedural defects, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of tax by the method as above (including additional taxes) again, and the amount of tax for the Plaintiff as of April 30, 1993, 60,000 won (including additional taxes) and 129,836,490 won (including additional taxes) with respect to four vessels, such as the diesel No. 1, etc., as an acquisition tax for occasional minutes in 1993.

2. Determination on the illegality of the instant disposition

First, the plaintiff is registered as the plaintiff's owner in the public register, but it is only in accordance with ordinary lease practices. The plaintiff pays rent for the lease period under the lease contract and uses it, but it is limited to a mere lessee who must return it if the lease period expires, and the actual owner shall actually acquire the above ship and make a lease for the plaintiff. In the same purport, Article 74 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that where the person who uses the newly acquired vehicle or construction machinery by the facility leasing company registers the vehicle or construction machinery, the lessee shall be deemed the taxpayer of the acquisition tax regardless of the registered name. Thus, it is against the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of prohibition of double taxation.

However, Article 104 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that the vessel shall be a kind of real estate. The real estate acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act does not impose the profit gained by the purchaser by using, earning from, or disposing of the real estate, but it is a kind of distribution tax under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act that recognizes and imposes the capacity to pay for the transfer of the goods. The "acquisition" of Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act includes all cases of acquisition of real estate in the form of transfer of ownership, regardless of whether the purchaser acquires the ownership in substance, regardless of whether the purchaser acquires the ownership in substance or not. If the plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership or the registration of ownership of the above vessel, the ownership of the above vessel is externally attributed to the plaintiff even if it was in accordance with the practice of the lease industry, and thus, it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to pay the acquisition tax as a type of transfer of ownership of the construction machinery, and even if the above vessel is not registered in the form of the above Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act.

In other words, the Plaintiff, a final taxation office of local taxes, has repeatedly maintained the interpretation of the interpretation of the duty to pay acquisition tax only once on the premise that the vessel lease by the operation lease is imposed only once, and even if Hanil Lease filed an objection against the Defendant as to the imposition of additional tax pursuant to the failure to report four kinds of vessels such as diesel 1, etc., the Defendant’s superior administrative office in Busan Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, even though the ownership transfer registration was made under the name of the Plaintiff, a lessee, can not be deemed as a procedural registration for the acquisition of maritime transportation business, and it cannot be deemed that the first successor acquired ownership. Accordingly, the first successor did not clearly interpret the legal principle that the acquisition tax liability is one-day lease, which is a lessee, and thus, it should be interpreted as legitimate among the lease-related entities, such as the Plaintiff and Hanil Lease, who are the duty to pay taxes, and thus, it should be interpreted as the Plaintiff’s previous tax office’s 16th of the imposition of acquisition tax under the name of the Plaintiff’s 16th of this case.

On July 25, 1987, the Minister of Home Affairs, upon the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4-8 and 9, shall apply only to cases where there are special circumstances acknowledged that the protection of taxpayer's trust is consistent with the definition, even if the plaintiff made a sacrifice of the principle of legality or the principle of respect of tax practice as stipulated in Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, although the plaintiff filed a request for review against the disposition of acquisition tax by the head of the non-party Incheon Metropolitan City and Incheon Metropolitan City, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City stated the same opinion as the plaintiff's principal in the procedure of filing an objection against the defendant's disposition of acquisition tax, the Minister of Home Affairs shall apply only to cases where there are no special circumstances that the plaintiff's request for review against the non-party's wrong interpretation or practice is legitimate to a general taxpayer who is not a specific taxpayer, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's tax practice or practice was not established in the above order of interpretation or practice of the law.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of the tax disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

September 1, 1994

Judges in the middle (Presiding Judge) and military discipline pending issues