A person liable to pay acquisition tax imposed at the time of new establishment of partnership houses

In the case of new construction of a building, barring special circumstances, a person who provided expenses, such as materials and wages, acquires the building at the original time, and the housing association does not construct and sell the building with its owner money, but constructs the building fund to be borne by each member of the association in accordance with the process. Therefore, even if the building was granted a building permit and completion inspection in the name of the association for the convenience of the construction procedure, the ownership of the building should be deemed as the original acquisition by the association members, a provider of construction funds.

Article 104 subparagraph 8 of the Local Tax Act, Article 105 (2) of the former Local Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and 191 Plaintiffs’ Attorney Ahn Young-do, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu2973 delivered on July 15, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party Dong-do Housing Association (hereinafter the housing association) is a housing association established under the Housing Construction Promotion Act with the plaintiffs who are the homeless workers working in the Dong-do-affiliated Group as its members under the Housing Construction Promotion Act with the approval of the project plan on May 20, 1989, and completed construction and completion inspection for 32-type apartment units for the members on the site of Dobong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) on December 11, 1991, and the defendant issued and issued acquisition tax on the above apartment units on the date of completion inspection and imposed tax on the housing association, and then the plaintiffs acquired the above apartment units from each housing association on February 17, 192 and issued the disposition of this case on June 15, 1992. Since the housing association is independent right from the plaintiffs, the defendant's imposition of acquisition tax on the housing association on the date of completion inspection shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of completion inspection, and thus, it rejected that the plaintiffs' acquisition tax against each of the plaintiffs.

The term "acquisition subject to imposition of acquisition tax" means acquisition resulting from sale, exchange, gift, contribution, investment in kind to a corporation, construction, reclamation of public water surface, reclamation of tidal land, etc., and any other similar acquisition, such as original acquisition, acquisition by succession, or grant without compensation, and other acquisitions (Article 104 subparagraph 8 of the Local Tax Act). In the case of acquisition of real estate, etc., it shall be considered that acquisition has been made if it is actually acquired even if registration, etc. under the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, is not fulfilled

In the case of new construction of a building, unless there are special circumstances, a person who has provided expenses, such as materials and wages, shall acquire the building at the original time, and the housing association does not construct and sell the building with its owner funds, but constructs the building funds to be borne by each member according to the process with the funds of the association members. Therefore, even if the building permission and completion inspection have been completed under the name of the association for the convenience of the construction procedure, the ownership of the building at this time shall be deemed to have been acquired at the original time by the association members, a provider of

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs' registration of preservation of ownership after the completion of the association house is a new original acquisition and thus constitutes the acquisition under the Local Tax Act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to acquisition under the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)