Whether it is subject to taxation of acquisition tax under Article 105 of the Local Tax Act for the transfer of ownership in the name of the original owner of the real estate offered as security for transfer.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 104, 105, and 110 of the Local Tax Act, it is the acquisition of real estate subject to acquisition under Article 105 of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to acquisition under Article 105 of the Local Tax Act, if the real estate owned by A was provided as a security for transfer to B and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of B, but later a security substitution agreement was made, and the transfer of ownership is cancelled and again received from B to

Article 105 of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu139 delivered on July 12, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 84Nu52 delivered on November 27, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Suwon Market (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu839 delivered on May 12, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the real estate of this case, which the plaintiff owned by the non-party, was provided as a security for transfer of loan to the non-party, and completed a registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the non-party, but thereafter, the transfer of security agreement for the real estate of this case was made between the non-party and the non-party, and then the cancellation of the transfer of ownership by the non-party, and the transfer of ownership transfer from the non-party to the plaintiff again constitutes the acquisition of real estate subject to taxation of acquisition tax under Article 105 of the Local Tax Act. In full view of the provisions of Articles 104, 105, and 110 of the Local Tax Act, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)