Whether the registration of acquisition of land for apartment construction in a large city of a construction company is subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976)

The construction company has acquired the land in a large city for the construction of apartment buildings to sell the land, and the real estate acquisition registration is not subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act if the construction company does not directly acquire the land for its business.

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976); Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 839, Dec. 31, 1976)

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu104 delivered on February 20, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act (No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976) which entered into force at the time of the instant case provides that the tax rate shall be five times the tax rates stipulated in Article 131 of the Local Tax Act in the case of registering real estate after the establishment of a juristic person, the establishment of a branch or sub-branch, and the relocation of a branch or sub-branch into a large city, and the establishment, establishment, or relocation of such branch or sub-branch. However, according to Article 138 (3) of the same Act (No. 839, Dec. 31, 1976) which was enacted at the time of the instant case, the registration of real estate acquisition pursuant to Article 138 (1) 3 of the same Act, which was acquired by the said juristic person for the purpose of its own business, shall not be deemed legitimate for the purpose of acquiring the ownership of the above real estate under the name of the plaintiff 17.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Sap-ho (Presiding Justice) Man-ho (Presiding Justice)