Whether a title trustee who entered into a sales contract with a title trust on land is a taxpayer for acquisition tax.

The real estate acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax under which the purchaser of real estate takes advantage of the fact that the transfer of goods is the transfer of goods and imposes the tax-bearing capacity recognition and imposition. Thus, the acquisition of real estate under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act is not related to the actual acquisition of ownership by the purchaser of the real estate. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act, the acquisition of real estate is deemed to have been actually acquired even if the purchaser of the real estate fails to perform the registration under the provisions of the Civil Act in the case of acquisition of the real estate under the provisions of the Civil Act. Thus, if Gap concludes a land sale contract under the title trust of Eul and pays the price in its name, it shall be deemed that the title trust constitutes the acquisition of trust property under the provisions of Article 110 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, barring special circumstances, such as the case where the title trust falls under the acquisition of trust property under the title trust.

Articles 105 and 110 of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu52 Decided November 27, 1984

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Kim Dong-dong, Attorney Go Young-young et al.

Lieutenant Guns of Jungwon

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu355 delivered on December 1, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the grounds of appeal by the defendant litigation performer, the court below held that the plaintiff, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 filed a sales contract with the above education committee on August 2, 1983 on the ground that the plaintiff, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 purchased the above land at approximately 33,01 square meters and 10,000 square meters, and the plaintiff calculated the above land at approximately 6,00 square meters, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 completed the registration of transfer on the part of the plaintiff for convenience, but the non-party did not complete the registration of transfer on the part of the non-party 1,00 square meters. The court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 purchased the above land under the non-party 1's name on the part of the non-party 1's land under the non-party 1's own name and the non-party 1's decision to revoke the registration of transfer.

However, the real estate acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax under which the purchaser of real estate takes advantage of the fact that the transfer of goods is the transfer of goods and imposes tax on the purchaser of the real estate who takes advantage of the profits gained by using, earning from, and disposing of the real estate. Thus, the acquisition of the real estate under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act is not related to whether the purchaser of the real estate actually acquires the ownership of the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu52 delivered on November 27, 1984). According to the above Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act, the acquisition of the real estate is deemed to have been acquired even if the registration under the Civil Act is not made in accordance with the provision of the Civil Act in the acquisition of the real estate. As seen above, as seen by the court below, the court below is deemed to have concluded a title trust under the name of the plaintiff with respect to the land and made a payment under the name of the plaintiff, barring special circumstances such as where the title trust falls under the acquisition of trust property under the title trust under Article 110 (3) of the Local Tax Act.

The court below's determination that the above land was acquired by Nonparty 1 and that the plaintiff was not acquired is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 105 (1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act. The arguments are reasonable.

In addition, without further determination, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant's failure is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)