Whether a real estate registration tax is subject to heavy registration tax due to the acquisition by succession of a factory whose land, building, production facilities, etc. are comprehensively acquired.

According to the provisions of Articles 102(3) and 84-2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979), and Articles 55 and 47 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, real estate registration due to the succession of a factory that is comprehensively taken over the land, buildings, manufacturing facilities, etc. of an existing factory is excluded from the "real estate registration due to the new construction or extension of a factory in a large city" under Article 138(1)4 of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to taxation of registration tax, and the interpretation that excludes the succession of a factory, the absolute number of which is not increased, from the taxation object of heavy taxation, in light of the legislative history or in light of the purpose of heavy taxation to restrain the concentration of population in a large city and prevent pollution.

Articles 138(1)3 and 4 of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945, Dec. 31, 1976); Articles 102(3) and 84-2(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979); Articles 55 and 47 subparag. 7 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu189 delivered on April 12, 1983, 81Nu333 delivered on February 28, 1984, 84Nu256 delivered on February 25, 1986

Attorney Kang Jin Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

The head of the Incheon Metropolitan City North Korea;

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu376 delivered on January 31, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff was a company established for the purpose of grain milling and processing business, etc. on April 30, 1980 and operated the same kind of business on May 14, 1980, and acquired 450,000,000, including the land of the existing grain milling factory, building, machinery and equipment, etc. in Incheon, from the non-party New Reconstruction Co., Ltd., and applied for ownership transfer registration of the land and building among them (hereinafter the real estate in this case) among them after acquiring 62 employees, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer registration under Article 131 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act (gold 12,261,20,20,000) and the defense tax (gold 2,452,244,000) and the registration tax under Article 131 (1) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act within 197,1982.

According to the provision of Article 138 (1) 3 and 4 of the Local Tax Act, the real estate registration subject to taxation among the registration tax is divided into the establishment of a corporation in a large city and the establishment of a principal office, a branch office or a branch office in a large city and real estate registration pursuant to the provision of Article 138 (1) 3; Article 138 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the scope of heavy registration tax under the provision of paragraph (1) 3 shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree; Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act provides that the number of factory members shall be excluded from the establishment of a factory in a large city or the relocation of a factory into a new factory in a large city; Article 8 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the real estate concerned shall be excluded from the establishment of a new factory; Article 138 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the relocation of a new factory in a large city shall be excluded from the establishment.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited by the theory of the lawsuit cannot be deemed appropriate in this case.

In the same view, the judgment below is just, and it is not possible to see the misunderstanding of legal principles, the violation of the Supreme Court precedents, or the incomplete hearing as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)