[1] The purport of the provisions of Articles 111 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act concerning the tax base of acquisition tax and registration tax, and whether the actual acquisition price can be used as the tax base where the requirements listed in Article 111(5) of the same Act are not satisfied (negative)

[2] The case holding that it is unlawful that the acquisition value reported by the plaintiff while he reported and paid acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. after the plaintiff's succession to real estate from his father does not meet the standard market price of real estate and does not meet the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 111 (5) of the Local Tax Act, but the total amount of succeeded debts confirmed by the gift contract, etc. is not the standard market price reported by the plaintiff but the actual acquisition price, and thus

[1] The purpose of Articles 11 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act concerning the tax base of acquisition tax and registration tax (amended by Act No. 7332 of Jan. 5, 2005) is the basic tax base in principle. If a taxpayer fails to file a return, or if the reported value falls short of the basic tax base, the basic tax base shall be the standard tax base. If the reported value falls short of the standard tax base, the actual tax base shall be the standard tax base. If a taxpayer files a return or a return satisfies the requirements under Article 111(5) of the former Local Tax Act, regardless of whether or not a taxpayer files a return or amount. The grounds listed under Article 111(5) of the same Act are limited and limited requirements that can be based on the actual acquisition price. If a taxpayer fails to meet the requirements listed under Article 111(5) of the same Act, the tax office cannot impose taxes such as acquisition tax and registration tax by means of proving the actual acquisition price through a contract, etc.

[2] The case holding that it is unlawful that the acquisition value reported by the Plaintiff when he reported and paid acquisition tax and registration tax, etc. after having succeeded to the obligation of real estate from his father does not fall short of the standard market price of real estate and does not fall under the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 111 (5) of the Local Tax Act, but the total amount of the succeeded obligation confirmed by the gift contract, etc., which is not the standard market price reported by the Plaintiff, shall be considered

[1] Articles 111 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7332 of January 5, 2005) / [2] Articles 111 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7332 of January 5, 2005)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Go Young-woo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Lee Jae-in)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu23805 delivered on August 12, 2005

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, the requirements for taxation, non-taxation, or tax exemption shall be avoided, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be allowed to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du5955, Mar. 12, 2004; 2003Du7200, Mar. 12, 2004; 2002Du6781, May 27, 2004).

The purpose of Articles 11 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7332, Jan. 5, 2005; hereinafter "the former Local Tax Act") concerning the tax base of acquisition tax and registration tax is the amount actually reported to a taxpayer as the tax base in principle. If a taxpayer fails to report or fails to report, if the reported value falls short of the standard tax base, the standard tax base shall be the standard tax base, and if the reported value falls short of the standard tax base, the actual tax base shall be determined as the tax base regardless of whether or not a taxpayer is reported or not, and if the requirements under Article 111(5) of the former Local Tax Act are satisfied, the grounds listed in Article 111(5) of the former Local Tax Act fall under the limited and limited requirements that can be based on the actual acquisition price. Thus, if the requirements listed therein are not satisfied, the tax authority cannot impose the tax base, such as acquisition tax and registration tax, by contract, etc.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s father’s succession to KRW 1,312,779,00 in aggregate of the obligation to refund the lease deposit and the obligation to refund the loan regarding the instant real estate from the Nonparty, who is the Plaintiff’s father. After the Plaintiff’s donation of the instant real estate, the acquisition value reported at the time of reporting and paying the acquisition tax and special agricultural and fishing villages tax, registration tax and local education tax do not fall short of the current base value as KRW 1,089,962,175, which is the current base value of the instant real estate, and does not fall short of the current base value, and notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the total amount of the succeeded obligation confirmed through the donation contract, etc. is unlawful, excluding the portion adjusted by 30/100 of the registration tax rate, which

On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition was lawful, based on the sum of obligations that the Plaintiff would succeed to the tax base of the instant real estate, not based on the standard market price reported by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff received as a gift. This erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Articles 111 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)