A. The meaning of “acquisition of real estate” under Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act

B. Requirements and criteria for the invalidity of taxation disposition as a matter of course

C. The validity of the taxation disposition in relation to the legal relation or factual relations where there are objective circumstances that could mislead the misunderstanding of being subject to taxation

(d) The case holding that the assessment of local tax imposed on real estate, the registration of ownership transfer of which has been completed for the purpose of securing the claim under paragraph (c), cannot be deemed apparently invalid as it is not reasonable;

A. Under the Local Tax Act, real estate acquisition tax in the Local Tax Act is a kind of distribution tax that takes up the fact that the transfer of goods is the transfer of goods and imposes the tax-bearing capacity recognizing and imposing the tax-bearing capacity, and it is not imposed by the purchaser of the real estate taking advantage of the profits gained by using, earning, and disposing of the real estate, and thus, "acquisition of real estate" in Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act includes all cases of acquisition of real estate by transfer of ownership regardless

B. In order for a taxation to be called a void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the taxation disposition is insufficient, that the defect is in violation of important laws and regulations, objectively apparent, and whether the defect is significant and obvious, it is necessary to examine the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the taxation in question, from a teleological perspective and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case

C. A taxation disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations (income or act) shall be deemed to be significant and apparent, but in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to the fact that he is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relations, then it cannot be deemed to be apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be an unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the fact that it is subject to taxation cannot be deemed to be void as a matter of course.

D. The case holding that the taxation of real estate acquisition tax cannot be deemed to be null and void automatically, considering the fact that even if the registration of ownership transfer based on the above provisional registration was to be cancelled after the provisional registration was completed after the provisional registration was made for the purpose of mortgage and then the registration of ownership transfer was made based on the above provisional registration, it became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court decision at the end of the litigation

(a) Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu919 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong1989,922) 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong1990,902) 91Nu10411 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992,1910). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10862 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991,207) 86Nu112 delivered on September 23, 1986 (Gong1986, 2974), 93Nu1432 delivered on December 7, 1993 (Gong194, 369, 1989) 194Da1987989 delivered on August 16, 198 (Gong194, 1979).

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Hong Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na7456 delivered on June 21, 1994

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the non-party 1 was unable to obtain the above provisional registration on July 27, 1982 to secure the above real estate loan obligation against the plaintiff, the court below held that the above non-party 1 had a provisional registration on the ground of sale and purchase promise, and that the non-party 1 did not pay global income tax and defense tax on January 31, 1983, and that the above real estate was seized to the Republic of Korea on February 12, 1983, and that the above non-party 1 had a provisional registration on the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1 and the above provisional registration on the non-party 6's transfer of ownership was revoked on the ground that the non-party 1 had no obligation to purchase the above real estate under the above provisional registration under the name of the non-party 1, the court below held that the above non-party 2 had no obligation to purchase the above real estate under the above provisional registration under the name of the court below 9.

2. However, the "acquisition of real estate" under Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act includes all cases of acquisition of real estate in the form of transfer of ownership, regardless of whether the acquisitor of real estate actually acquires ownership or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu52, Nov. 27, 1984; 88Nu919, Apr. 25, 198; 91Nu10411, May 12, 1992). On the other hand, it is clear that there is no substantial error in taxation to determine that the taxation disposition is unlawful, and that there is no apparent error in its content; 200Nu9816, Nov. 27, 198; 199; 20Nu9811, May 16, 1992; 30.196, supra, it is clear that there is no objective reason to determine whether the taxation disposition is unlawful; 196Nu19816, supra.

In the case of this case, as long as the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration of this case on the real estate of this case, at least objective externally constitutes the "acquisition of real estate" under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act. The provisional registration is not for securing the right to claim ownership transfer based on the actual sale promise, but for securing the right to claim ownership transfer due to the real sale promise, so even if the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration should be cancelled pursuant to Article 35 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes because it is not for securing the right to claim the right to claim ownership transfer due to the reason that the provisional registration was made for the purpose of securing the right to claim ownership, it can be revealed only after a thorough investigation of facts. Considering the fact that the above registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration is confirmed only by the Supreme Court decision after the tax disposition of this case and the plaintiff and non-party 3 after the tax disposition

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquisition of real estate subject to the imposition of acquisition tax or the legal doctrine on the invalidation of a tax disposition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the lower court deemed that the instant tax disposition has apparent apparent apparent defects in appearance in the instant tax disposition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)