Whether the establishment or extension of a factory which is not based on the will of the purchaser of the building constitutes the establishment or extension of a factory in a large city subject to heavy tax rates (negative)

The term "new construction or extension of a factory in a large city subject to heavy tax rate" means a case where an acquirer of a taxable object newly constructs or expands a factory. Thus, in a case where a third party who acquired a new factory building but occupies it against the intent of an acquisitor, it cannot be determined whether it constitutes the new construction or extension of a factory of the third party on the basis of the fact of the new construction or extension of a new factory in this building. Therefore, the plaintiffs were granted a provisional registration on the building of this case for the purpose of securing a claim against the non-party (A), but completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the above provisional registration on February 20, 1980, and the non-party (B), as a new factory, established possession by taking over the right of lease from the lessee as of January 14, 1980, who was prior to the acquisition of the plaintiff's ownership, and at the 16th day of that month, the non-party (A), who was the owner of the building, filed a confirmation of the above right of lease and filed a claim for the new construction of the building.

Articles 112(3) and 138(1)4 of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 188(2) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 102(3) and 142-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and 2 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu481 delivered on April 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 of the defendant litigation performer are also examined.

According to Articles 112(3), 138(1)4, and 188(2) of the Local Tax Act, where real estate is acquired in order to newly build or extend a factory in a large city prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the acquisition tax rate, the registration tax rate on real estate registration, and the property tax rate shall be applied to the fixed heavy taxation rate. According to Articles 84-2(2), 102(3), and 142-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, each of the above provisions provides that the new construction or extension of a factory means the new construction or extension of a factory except for the acquisition by succession of a factory or the alteration of a type of business of a factory in the city.

In light of the above provisions, the new construction or extension of a factory in a large city subject to heavy tax rate means the case where the acquisitor of the taxable object in question newly constructs or expands the factory. Thus, in a case where a third party who acquired a new factory building but occupies it against the intent of the acquisitor, newly constructs or expands the factory facilities in this building, it cannot be determined whether it constitutes the new construction or extension of the factory by the acquisitor on the basis of the third party's new construction or extension of the factory.

In this case, the plaintiffs completed provisional registration on the building of this case owned by the same non-party for the purpose of securing a claim against the non-party 1, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of the provisional registration on February 20, 1980 following settlement made at the time when the principal registration procedure was implemented at the time when the principal registration procedure was performed. The part of the building of this case is a permanent factory building, which is the non-party 2 acquired a right of lease from the lessee as of January 14, 1980 before the plaintiffs acquired the right of ownership and started possession, and the non-party 1, the owner of the building, as of January 14, 1980, used the building as the previous factory with the approval of the above right of lease transfer, and started business from March 1, 200 after newly installed the machinery facilities for manufacturing electronic parts, and the plaintiffs failed to comply with the above order after acquiring the ownership of the building of this case, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above part of the building of this case was not acquired by the non-party 2.

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.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)