Whether the late payment charge for the purchase price is included in the "acquisition price" stipulated in Articles 130 (3) and 111 (5) of the Local Tax Act (affirmative)

The "actual acquisition price" stipulated in Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act shall be interpreted to include the amount actually paid by the purchaser of a taxable object for the acquisition of the land even if the nominal acquisition price is not determined. Therefore, even if the nominal acquisition price is not determined, if the purchaser of the taxable object pays it for the acquisition of the land, it is reasonable to interpret that the overdue charge due to delay in the payment of the purchase price for the land is also paid for the acquisition of the land in fact by the purchaser

Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu151 delivered on March 13, 1984, 83Nu245 delivered on February 26, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu35 delivered on March 26, 1985 (Dong)

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Hong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu316 delivered on December 7, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The "actual acquisition price" stipulated in Articles 130 (3) and 111 (5) of the Local Tax Act means that even if the nominal acquisition price is not determined, if the purchaser of a taxable object pays for the actual acquisition of the taxable object, it shall be interpreted as including the amount paid by the purchaser for the acquisition of the taxable object. In accordance with the purport of the above judgment of remand, the court below held that the late payment charge due to delay in the payment of the land sale price of this case at the original time in accordance with the purport of the above judgment of remand should be deemed to constitute a part of the above "actual acquisition" as the one actually paid by the plaintiff who is the acquisitor for the acquisition of the land. There is no error in the misapprehension of Articles 130 and 111 of the Local Tax Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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 Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)