Acquisition tax liability for the acquisition of real estate by payment in kind (=the time of registration of ownership transfer)

Article 29 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that acquisition tax shall be liable for payment at the time of acquisition of property; Article 105 (2) of the same Act provides that acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been actually acquired even if it is not registered under the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, in the case of acquisition of real property. Here, the term "actual acquisition" generally refers to a case where it does not meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership such as registration, but meets the substantive requirements for acquisition of ownership such as the payment of the price. Thus, the payment in kind is an essential contract established at the time of other payment in lieu of the original obligation. If other payment in kind is a real estate ownership transfer, the payment in kind is established and the existing obligation becomes extinct. Thus, the creditor cannot be deemed to have satisfied the substantive requirements for acquisition before the registration of ownership transfer is completed, and therefore it shall be deemed to have been acquired at the time of

Articles 29(1)1 and 105(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

E-Government Market

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu18181 delivered on September 29, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 29 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that an object of taxation of acquisition tax shall be established at the time of acquisition, and Article 105 (2) of the same Act provides that an object of taxation of acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been actually acquired even if it is not registered under the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, in the case of acquisition of real estate. Here, "actual acquisition" refers to a case where an object of acquisition of real estate does not meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership such as registration, but meets the substantive requirements for acquisition of ownership such as the payment of price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16843, Sept. 28, 1993). It is an essential contract established at the time of actual payment in lieu of the original obligation. If other payment is a ownership transfer of real estate, the existing creditor shall be deemed to have completed the registration of ownership transfer only before the registration of ownership is completed.

In light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the plaintiff, for convenience, completed a contract contract as if he purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party, and completed the report of the transaction contract under the provisions of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which was in force at the time, but no contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the non-party on the date of actual preparation, and the plaintiff agreed to transfer the real estate of this case owned by the non-party in lieu of the repayment of loan claims against the non-party on June 1996, but the plaintiff agreed to transfer the real estate of this case to the non-party in lieu of the repayment of loan claims against the non-party. However, prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer

In light of the above legal principles, since the Plaintiff’s liability to pay acquisition tax on the instant real estate cannot be established in light of the above legal principles, the instant disposition of imposing acquisition tax must be deemed unlawful, and it shall include all cases of acquisition through the form of transfer of ownership without relation to whether the acquisitor acquires ownership on the land as a requirement for imposing acquisition tax, and it shall not be deemed as acquisition by the form of transfer of ownership. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)