The taxable object of acquisition tax (=the de facto acquisition act) and the time of acquisition of real estate the acquisition by prescription of which has been completed (=the time the acquisition by prescription is completed)

Since acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that takes up the fact that it is the transfer of goods per se and imposes a tax-bearing force on the part of the purchaser, regardless of whether the purchaser actually acquires ownership or not, it is subject to taxation, and Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act provides that the actual acquisition of the real estate, which is a taxable object of acquisition tax, shall be deemed to have been acquired when it is actually acquired even if the purchaser fails to comply with the registration, record, etc. under the Civil Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to the acquisition of the real estate, which is a taxable object of acquisition tax. Accordingly, upon the completion of the prescription of acquisition by possession of the real estate, the acquisitor has a right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership against the registered titleholder, such as when the remainder is settled.

Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16843 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2997), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10627 delivered on January 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1174), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu525 delivered on May 7, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1772), Supreme Court Decision 98Du1428 delivered on December 8, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 16727)

Han Ilsan Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samduk, Attorneys Kim Ba-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan City Gun

Busan High Court Decision 2003Nu1899 delivered on October 17, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Since acquisition tax is not imposed by the purchaser, as a kind of distribution tax, based on the fact that the transfer of the original goods is the transfer of the goods and imposing the tax-bearing capacity recognizing and imposing the transfer of the goods, regardless of whether the purchaser actually acquires ownership or not (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du14228, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.) and Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act provides that the actual acquisition of the real property, which is the object of acquisition tax, shall be deemed to have been acquired when it is actually acquired even if it is not registered or registered in accordance with the Civil Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to the acquisition of the real property, which is the object of acquisition tax, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the acquisition by prescription of the possession of the real property, upon the completion of the acquisition by prescription, has a right to claim ownership transfer registration, such as when the remainder is settled, and thus, becomes the object of taxation of acquisition tax.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the period of acquisition of the real estate of this case by the plaintiff was 5 years from July 9, 1991 after the expiration of the 20-year prescription period from the commencement of possession, not from July 28, 2002, but from June 9, 1991 after the expiration of the 20-year prescription period from the commencement of possession due to the plaintiff's claim for registration of transfer of ownership, as alleged by the defendant, the period of acquisition of the real estate of this case has already expired on August 2, 2002, which is the disposal date of this case. There is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the time of acquisition in the acquisition of prescription, or contrary to the principle of clarity of taxation requirements or the principle of tax equity, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)