A. The meaning of acquiring real estate under Article 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990), which provides for the liability to pay acquisition tax, and whether it constitutes a case where a registration of ownership transfer is completed due to a title trust or termination of a title trust (affirmative)

B. Whether a co-owner in a sectionally owned co-ownership is exempted from acquisition tax because he/she takes a method of transfer registration based on the termination of the nominal trust in order to resolve the mutual title trust relationship falls under the "acquisition due to the division of co-ownership" under Article 110 subparagraph 2 of the same Act (negative)

A. Article 104 Subparag. 8 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that acquisition in acquisition tax means sale, exchange, gift, ... and any other similar acquisition without asking for original acquisition, acquisition by succession, or compensation or without compensation. Accordingly, acquisition of real estate under Article 105(1) of the same Act, which provides for liability to pay acquisition tax, includes all cases of real estate acquisition in the form of transfer of ownership, and thus constitutes a case of completing the registration of transfer of ownership due to the title trust or the termination of title trust.

B. Article 110 of the same Act is deemed to include limited list of non-taxation subject to acquisition tax among acquisition through the form of transfer of ownership. Thus, even if co-owners on the register of the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, who purchased a specific portion of land separately and completed the transfer registration of ownership to the whole part for the convenience of registration, have taken the method of transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust in order to satisfy the registration and the actual status by eliminating the title trust relationship among co-owners, it cannot be said to be the case of acquisition by the form of transfer of ownership, so long as it is acquired by the form of transfer of ownership, it cannot be said to be the case of "acquisition due to the division of co-ownership

A. Article 104 Subparag. 8 and Article 105(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 190)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8098 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989,700) 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990,902) 90Nu8114 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong191, 1943)

Plaintiff

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu10536 delivered on August 21, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The supplementary appellate brief shall be deemed to be within the scope of supplement in case of supplement to the grounds of appeal stated in the appellate brief.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. The Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 1 omitted) is the land divided after a land substitution is confirmed on January 24, 1966 with a thickness of 502.8 square meters and (No. 7 omitted) 307.4 square meters and (No. 3 omitted) 2249.9 square meters and (No. 4 omitted) 483.6 square meters and (No. 5 omitted), (No. 5 omitted) 502.8 square meters and (No. 6 omitted) 544.8 square meters and (No. 7 omitted) forest owned by the State on January 24, 1966, which are owned by the State. In the case of the above forest, part of each of the above forest land was divided into several persons before the land substitution is finalized, the State made a registration of transfer corresponding to the share of each area of the above forest as to the whole. After that, the above forest was divided into six lots and registered as a substitute land.

B. Furthermore, even if the above specific part was transferred before transfer, the registration is still taken the form of share transfer registration. On October 1, 1965, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the registered titleholders other than the plaintiff under this case on the ground of title trust, and filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration on the ground of title trust registration against the non-party's other registered titleholders other than the plaintiff under this case on the ground that the ownership transfer registration is not in accord with the judgment of the court below, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 14, 1990 as to the share of 184.81/2,906 out of the entire forest as above. As to the land in this case which is substantially owned by the plaintiff, only the share of 184.81/2,906 on the registry was registered as its own, while the remaining five lots of land is not owned by the plaintiff, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration on the ground of title trust registration on the ground of title trust registration.

C. As above, in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, in which the specific portion of the land of one parcel is purchased by dividing and the share transfer registration for the whole part is completed for the convenience of registration, the co-owners on the registry are in title trust relation between them, and in order to resolve such relation and to coincide with the registration, it is only one way to resolve the special co-ownership relation, but it is only one way to resolve the special co-ownership relation. On the other hand, the specific portion of land is the sole ownership of each co-owner on the registry by the registration of share transfer, while the co-ownership on the other portion of land is extinguished, and its substance constitutes co-ownership of co-owned property, unlike the case of registration of transfer due to the termination of ordinary title trust, it is judged that it constitutes "acquisition due to division of co-ownership" under Article 110 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 190, hereinafter the same).

2. However, Article 104 subparagraph 8 of the Local Tax Act provides, however, that acquisition in acquisition tax means acquisition by sale, exchange, gift, ..... and any other similar acquisition without asking for the original acquisition by succession or for or without compensation, and accordingly, acquisition in real estate under Article 105 (1) of the same Act, which provides for the liability to pay acquisition tax, includes all cases of real estate acquisition in the form of transfer of ownership, and falls under the case of completing registration of transfer of ownership due to title trust or termination of title trust (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 190).

In addition, Article 110 of the same Act is deemed to list the acquisition subject to non-taxation from among the acquisition through the form of transfer of ownership as above. Thus, even if the plaintiff received the transfer registration of ownership in the site of this case, as long as it was acquired in the form of transfer registration, it cannot be viewed as a "acquisition due to the division of co-ownership" under Article 110 (1) 2 of the same Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a non-taxation of acquisition tax.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquisition through the acquisition and the division of co-ownership under the Local Tax Act, and the ground for appeal assigning this error has merit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)