The meaning of trust property under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) and subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 128 of the former Local Tax Act, and whether the real estate purchased with the money later constitutes trust property subject to non-taxation of acquisition tax and registration tax (negative)

Article 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that "acquisition of trust property through a trust (limited to a trust under the Trust Act and accompanied by a trust registration) under subparagraph 1, which falls under any of the following items." (b) provides that "acquisition where a trust property is transferred from a trustee due to the termination or termination of the trust," and Article 128 of the same Act provides that "acquisition of trust property through a trust (limited to a trust under the Trust Act and accompanied by a trust registration)" shall be non-taxation subject to registration tax under subparagraph 1, and that "registration or enrollment falling under any of the following items is a registration or enrollment where only the truster transfers the trust property that became the principal beneficiary of the trust property to the beneficiary." Since each of the above provisions of the above provisions of the Local Tax Act provides that "acquisition of property right where the trustee first transfers the trust property to the beneficiary, it refers to a registration or enrollment of a trust property at the time of the trust, which shall not fall under the first trust property:

Subparagraph 1 (b) and subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 110 and Article 128 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of August 30, 197)

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 902) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1041 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1910) Supreme Court Decision 98Da12171 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2010)

Plaintiff

The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu33210 delivered on May 29, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) provides that "acquisition of trust property through a trust (limited to a trust under the Trust Act and accompanied by a trust registration) under subparagraph 1, which falls under any of the following items." (b) provides that "acquisition in case where a trust property is transferred from a trustee due to termination or termination of the trust," and Article 128 provides that "acquisition in case where a trust property is transferred from a trustee" as a non-taxation subject to registration tax under subparagraph 1, "registration or enrollment in case where a trust (limited to a trust under the Trust Act and accompanied by a trust registration) falls under any of the following items." (b) provides that "registration or enrollment in case where only the truster transfers a trust property that became the beneficiary of the trust property to a beneficiary of the original trust property." Since each of the above provisions of the above Article provides that "acquisition in case where a trustee purchases a trust property at the same time as a trust registration under the Local Tax Act does not fall under the first provision of the trust property:

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, it can be known that the trustee purchased the instant real estate in money entrusted with trust and registered it in his name later, and later completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of reversion of the trust property in the future of the plaintiff. Thus, the instant real estate does not constitute a non-taxable trust property

The conclusion of the court below's decision that the above real estate does not constitute a non-taxable trust property is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)