[1] Whether the defect can be cured even if some of the entries are omitted in a notice of taxation prior to the notice of taxation (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the relocation of the head office is subject to heavy acquisition tax by expanding the office used by the branch in the same overconcentration control region

[1] If a necessary entry in the notice of tax notice sent prior to the disposition of tax imposition is properly stated, it is clear that the person liable for tax payment would not have any impediment to the decision of objection against the taxation disposition and the appeal of dissatisfaction. Thus, even if a part of the entries are omitted in the notice of tax payment, the defect in the notice of tax payment can be supplemented or corrected.

[2] The case holding that since the legislative intent of the acquisition tax weighting on the real estate acquired or acquired by the head office in an overconcentration control region lies in suppressing the population entry and the establishment and extension of the head office or main office which significantly causes concentration in the metropolitan area, it is reasonable not to impose heavy taxation on the case where the head office or main office is simply relocated within the same overconcentration control region, but since the relocation of the main office or main office to the part of the existing branch office to the said branch office is the expansion of the main office's office's building to the said branch office's building, it should be deemed that the said building's real estate becomes a real estate for business of the head office after the acquisition of the whole building, or acquired through the real estate for business of the head office after the extension of the whole building, which may lead to inflow of population

[1] Article 9 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 25 (1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act / [2] Article 112 (1) and (3), and Article 112-2 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act, Article 9 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13981 delivered on July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2317), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu19542 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1353), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2326 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2696 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong19695Ha, 2665 delivered on July 16, 195), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1156 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2665 delivered on July 14, 196) 96Nu19699 delivered on September 26, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 2699)

New Bank of Korea (Attorney Cho Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 502,528,060 and special rural development tax of KRW 46,065,060, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on March 15, 2001, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) On November 1, 1994, the Plaintiff, whose head office is located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul and 120, acquired on November 1, 1994 4-3, 68-4, Young-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and 3,064 square meters of the total floor area of the above-ground building (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building before its extension”), and used it as the Plaintiff’s Yeongdeungpo-gu branch.

B. On July 16, 1996, the Plaintiff extended the size of 461.93 square meters to the above building (the extension of each floor above the ground and the construction of the 7th floor, hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"). Around August of the same year, the Plaintiff transferred the personal credit management department among the organization departments of the Plaintiff's headquarters to the 3,4,6th and the 1,243.27 square meters of the building in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"), and used the building in this case as the above personal credit management department office.

C.The Plaintiff filed each return on acquisition tax calculated by applying the standard tax rate respectively at the time of acquisition of the instant land and the building before extension and at the time of extension of the said extension.

D. However, the defendant, from August 1996, deducted the amount of return and payment by applying heavy taxation rate for the reason that the part of the building in this case and the part of the land in this case (in this case, the part of the building in this case constitutes the proportion occupied by the building in this case; hereinafter referred to as "the annexed land in this case") from the personal credit management division of the head office from August 1996, after deducting the amount of return and payment by the plaintiff on March 8, 2001, after deducting the amount of return and payment by applying heavy taxation rate for the reason that the part of the building in this case and the land in this case constituted the acquisition or use of real estate for business purposes of the head office in this case (hereinafter referred to as "the annexed land in this case").

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Eul No. 1, 2, Eul No. 3-1, 3-3, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. Applicable statutes;

former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998)

Article 112 (Tax Rates) (1) The standard tax rate for acquisition tax shall be 20/100 of the value of acquired articles or the amount of annual installments.

(c) Acquisition tax rates for acquiring real estate for business of the head office or principal office as determined by the Presidential Decree in an overconcentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act shall be 500/100 of those listed in paragraph (1)

(3) Where real estate for the business of the head or principal office becomes real estate in the case of the relevant land or building within five years after such land or building is acquired under Article 112 (3), the acquisition tax shall be collected additionally by applying the tax rate under the same paragraph of the same Article.

Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998)

(3) For the purpose of Article 112 (3) of the Act, the term “real estate for the business of head or main office as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means real estate used as the head or main office of a corporation, and real estate for subsidiary facilities thereof.

Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act

Article 6 (Classification and Designation of Regions) (1) For the proper allocation of population and industries within the Seoul Metropolitan Area, the Seoul Metropolitan Area shall be classified as follows:

(2) Scope of overconcentration control zones, growth management zones and nature preservation zones shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning

Article 9 (Scope of Regions) The scope of the overconcentration control region, the growth management zone, and the nature preservation zone under Article 6 of the Act shall be as specified in attached Table 1. [Attachment Table 1]

3. Determination

A. The Local Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree provide that the payment notice of local taxes shall be based on the tax payment notice or payment notice stating the year, tax item, payment period and amount of local taxes to be paid. The basis for calculating the amount of taxes and the place of payment (Article 25(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act). The Act on Special Rural Development Tax provides that the same shall apply to the imposition and collection of the principal tax if taxes are not reported or paid (Article 8(2)3 of the Act on Special Rural Development Tax). Since it is apparent that the necessary entries in the notice of tax payment are not interfered with the determination of whether a taxpayer is dissatisfied with the taxation and the tax payment notice of 00 tax notice of 10 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 10 tax notice of 10 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 10 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 10 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 20 tax notice and 10 tax notice of 20 tax notice of 14.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful since the personal credit management division of the head office moved to the office of this case because it is merely the removal of the office of the main office to the office of the main office of the building that acquired the real estate subject to acquisition tax and the real estate subject to acquisition tax. However, the plaintiff extended each floor of the above building on or around July 16, 1996 after acquiring the building before the extension on November 1, 1994, and newly constructed the seven floors (the head office or the office of the main office shall not be the subject of extension or acquisition). The fact that the personal credit management division of the head office of this case moved to the office of the main office of this case on or around August 1996 and used the building of this case as the office of the main office of this case since the plaintiff moved to the office of the main office of this case, since the part of this case was acquired (the extension) or acquired after acquiring it as the real estate for business purposes of the main office of this case on or around August 1996.

(c) The plaintiff asserts that the personal credit management department of the head office has moved within the same overconcentration control region, and thus, it is excluded from the heavy taxation since the population is not introduced or the concentration of economic power is not induced, and even if it becomes subject to heavy taxation, it is merely 461.93 square meters newly extended.

Therefore, the legislative intent of the acquisition tax weighting on the acquisition of real estate acquired or acquired by the head office in the health zone and the overpopulation control zone is to restrict the entry of population and the establishment and extension of the head office or main office significantly causing the concentration of industry in the metropolitan area. Therefore, it is reasonable not to impose heavy taxation on the mere transfer of the head office or main office within the same overpopulation control zone (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du6309 delivered on May 30, 200). However, in this case where there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the office used by the personal credit management division in the existing head office is no longer used for the business of the head office, since the relocation of the main office to the main office is the expansion of the main office to the building of this case, the transfer of the main office to the main office of this case constitutes real estate for business after the acquisition of the main office of this case or acquired real estate for business purposes in the new construction of the main office or the extension of the main office of this case, and there is no ground for the restriction of acquisition tax or the main office of this case.

D. The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that there is no provision on taxation as to the land annexed to the instant case, and thus, it should be excluded from the heavy taxation object under the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation of tax law and the principle of no taxation without law. However, Article 84-2(3) of the former Local Tax Act provides that real estate used as a business office of the head office among acquisition tax and real estate for its subsidiary facilities, and real estate includes building and land, and the use of the building is inevitably accompanied by the use of the building site. The instant annexed land portion corresponds to the ratio of the area of the instant building to the area of the instant building to the area of the instant building to the area of the instant land, and thus constitutes land inevitably accompanied by the use of the instant annexed part. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the instant building is used as the principal office. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the instant building among the instant land occupied by the extension of the building in the instant building is subject to heavy taxation is without merit.

E. Lastly, the Plaintiff asserts that the part used by individual entrepreneurs entrusted with the collection of claims from the Plaintiff among the part of the instant building cannot be deemed to be the office of the Plaintiff’s head office, and thus, it should be excluded from the subject of heavy taxation. Since the Plaintiff’s employees and individual entrepreneurs worked in the instant building at the ratio of 2:8 from August 1996 to February 1997, 8/10 of the instant disposition should be revoked.

Therefore, according to the health team, Gap evidence 6-8, Gap evidence 9-1 through 108, Gap evidence 10-1 through 99, Gap evidence 11-1-16, and the testimony of the two witnesses, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a bonds management service contract with outside business operators and the outside business operators are using a certain space divided among the parts of the building of this case. However, in light of the fact that outside business operators are handling the plaintiff's business in accordance with the above service contract, even if the outside business operators use part of the building of this case, this part of the building of this case is used as part of the office of the plaintiff's personal credit management department provided by the plaintiff, and it does not change from the point that the part of the building of this case is real estate used as the plaintiff's business property, that is, real estate used as the office.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung Pung-tae (Presiding Judge)