Whether it constitutes the acquisition by succession of a factory excluded from the subject matter of heavy taxation in cases where new machinery and equipment have been installed in a factory purchased except for machinery and equipment, etc. (negative)

In full view of the provisions of Articles 112(3) and 138(1)4 and (3) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 84-2(2) and 102(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 47(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the "acquisition by succession of a factory excluded from taxable object" means that a factory is comprehensively taken over the land, buildings, production facilities, etc. of an existing factory, and it is reasonable to view that a factory purchased with the exception of machinery and equipment is not included in the above acquisition by succession.

Articles 112(3), 138(1)4, and 138(3) of the Local Tax Act; Articles 84-2(2) and 102(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 47 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 243, Nov. 24, 197)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Head of Busan Northern Office

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu295 delivered on March 22, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff purchased and acquired a convenience manufacturing factory for export from the non-party on December 14, 1978, when he leased a leather manufacturing factory from September 25, 1976 to Busan ( Address 1 omitted), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 1979 and transferred the plaintiff's above factory to the non-party on June 26, 1979. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence as to the above building site, power facility, telephone facility, water facility, etc. from the non-party except the above non-party on July 15, 1980. The court below determined that the plaintiff purchased the convenience manufacturing factory from the non-party on June 26, 1980, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 30, 197 as to the above building. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the evidence or the records.

2. Determination on the second ground for appeal

According to Articles 112(3), 138(1)4 and (3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-2(2) and Article 102(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when acquiring and registering an object of taxation to newly build or extend a factory in a large city, the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be levied heavy, but this shall not apply in the case of acquisition by succession of a factory: Provided, That this is the case of acquisition by succession of a factory in a large city, which shows the legislative intent of preventing the concentration of population in a large city by heavy taxation on the new construction or extension of a factory in a large city. Accordingly, in light of the legislative intent and the provisions of Article 47(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (No. 243 of the Ministry of Home Affairs), which were enforced at the time of the occurrence of the taxation requirement of this case, the "acquisition by succession of a factory excluded from the object of taxation" means that it is difficult to comprehensively take over the land, building, production facilities, etc. of an existing factory, and there is no error in the above theory of succession.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)