(a) Requirements for imposition of the registration tax heavier than that imposed on the real estate registration due to the establishment of a branch office in the large city and the time when the liability for payment of the heavy registration tax becomes effective, in case where the real estate registration has been completed first and the branch office is established

B. Whether the obligation to voluntarily pay the registration tax can be deemed to have been imposed on the person liable for tax payment, in the case where the requirements for heavy taxation of the registration tax for the establishment, etc. of a branch after the registration for acquisition of real estate are met (negative)

A. The taxation requirement of the registration tax imposed on the registration of real estate following the establishment of a branch of a corporation in a large city is two main requirements for the registration of real estate in the large city and the establishment of a branch after the establishment of the branch. Therefore, even if the registration of real estate was completed first in the large city, it is reasonable to establish the tax liability for the registration tax imposed only on the case where the branch was established later.

B. To impose an additional tax on the heavy registration tax, it shall be premised on the person liable for tax payment who is liable for voluntary report and payment. With respect to the heavy registration tax, the provisions of the proviso of Article 120 of the Local Tax Act that stipulate the obligation to voluntarily report and pay the acquisition tax, and it shall not be deemed that the person liable for the registration tax imposes the obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax if the heavy taxation requirements for the establishment of the branch after the registration of the acquisition of the real estate are satisfied.

(a) Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 151 of the Local Tax Act;

Daedong Bank, Inc.

The head of Busan Gu

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu940 delivered on September 6, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, the purpose of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act provides that the registration tax rate for the registration of real estate following the establishment of a branch in a large city shall be five times the general tax rate, and Article 102(2) through Article 138(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the registration of real estate following the establishment of a branch in a large city refers to all the registration of real estate acquired before the establishment of the branch in the large city. According to the above provision, the imposition requirements for the registration tax on real estate following the establishment of a branch in a large city shall be two parts of the registration and the establishment of the branch in the large city. Accordingly, even if the registration of real estate was first completed in a large city, it shall be reasonable to establish the liability to pay taxes on the real estate only when the branch is established thereafter.

In addition, as long as the taxation requirements for the heavy registration tax are considered as above, it shall be under the premise that a taxpayer has the obligation to voluntarily report and pay the registration tax. Article 124 of the Local Tax Act provides that "where a person liable to pay the registration tax fails to report the acquisition, transfer, alteration or extinguishment of property rights or other rights in the public register, such registration tax shall be imposed on the person who has received the registration, and Article 130 (2) of the same Act provides that "the tax base under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be reported by the person who has made the registration, under the conditions as prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance," and Article 138 (1) of the same Act provides that "if a person liable to pay the registration tax makes a registration falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the tax rate shall be five times the tax rates provided for in Articles 131 and 137, and if the person liable to pay the registration tax fails to report under the provisions of Article 130 (2) or fails to report or to report matters concerning the acquisition, transfer, alteration or extinguishment of such rights, the tax rate of the registration tax rate shall be determined by voluntary report or payment basis under the provisions of Articles 130 through 1 through 30 or 130.

In full view of the evidence of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff voluntarily pays the registration tax and defense tax under general tax rates while acquiring the site and building on March 8, 1990 and completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and on June 11 of the same year, the plaintiff registered his business with human resources and physical facilities at the time of opening the business on June 14 of the same year; on the same day, the tax amount calculated by applying the heavy tax rate under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act after deducting the amount voluntarily paid by general tax rate from the amount of tax calculated by applying the heavy tax rate under the above Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act; and on the other hand, the obligation to pay the registration tax under the heavy tax rate on the establishment of the real estate at the location of a branch in a large city constitutes an unlawful voluntary declaration of the court below's decision that the above obligation to pay the registration tax on the real estate to the plaintiff as the date of revocation of the above tax rate.

In this dissenting opinion, the appellant’s assertion that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment is not acceptable. The argument is groundless.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)