[1] The relevance between the acquisition of real estate and the establishment of a branch, etc. in the heavy registration tax for the establishment of a corporation and establishment of a branch, etc. in a large city under the former Local Tax Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the registration of real estate does not constitute the real estate registration pursuant to the establishment of a branch subject to registration tax under the former Local Tax Act, since the acquisition of real estate and the establishment of a branch, in case where a juristic person acquired real estate for the purpose of sale, but the part of the public bath cannot be sold out to others, and a branch of public bath is established temporarily until the sale to others for the purpose of maintaining the public bath facility

[1] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that real estate registration is subject to heavy registration taxes for the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of a branch office or sub-branch in a large city and for the relocation of a branch office, sub-branch or sub-branch in a large city. Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998) provides that real estate is subject to heavy registration taxes for the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of a main office, a branch office or sub-branch in a large city and the relocation of a branch office or sub-branch in a large city. Since all real estate registrations in this context mean that real estate are acquired by a corporation or a branch office in connection with the establishment, establishment and transfer of a branch office or sub-branch in a corporation, the acquisition of real estate must not be made at the time of its establishment or transfer.

[2] Where a corporation acquired real estate for the purpose of selling it in lots, but the part of the public bath cannot be sold out, the court below's decision that the registration of the real estate does not constitute a real estate registration of establishment of a branch subject to registration tax under the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), since the acquisition of real estate and establishment of a branch of the public bath were not recognized, in case where the public bath was established temporarily until the public bath facility is sold in lots to another person for the purpose of maintaining the public bath facility

[1] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of December 31, 1998), Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of July 16, 1998), Article 55-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 11 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of July 23, 1998) / [2] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of December 31, 1998), Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of July 16, 1998), Article 15-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of July 15, 23, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu556 delivered on January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 361), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1561, 15628 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2324), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15796 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1985), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11804 delivered on April 28, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 97Nu9253 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3524)

Three Housing Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Geumcheon-gu (Attorney Kim Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu54507 delivered on December 9, 1998

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

Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that real estate registration following the establishment of a corporation in a large city and the establishment of its head office, main office, branch office or branch office in a large city and the relocation of a corporation into a main office, branch office or branch office in a large city shall be one of the subject of registration taxes. Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998) provides that real estate shall not be used before the establishment, establishment, transfer, or transfer of the head office, branch office, or branch office in a large city (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da19797, Apr. 19, 197).

The court below held that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case for the purpose of new construction and sale on the ground of this case and newly constructed the building of 6th above ground of this case on November 24, 1995, and completed registration of ownership transfer on the whole land of this case on December 20, 1995 and entered into a contract for sale of ownership transfer on June 14, 1996 with the non-party 1's establishment of public bath facilities of this case from September 195 to the non-party 9's establishment of public bath facilities of this case for the purpose of 196's establishment of public bath facilities of this case after obtaining registration of 1's public bath facilities of this case from the non-party 1 to the non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's establishment of public bath facilities of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)