Where the facility leasing company has leased the facilities to the user of the facilities, the person liable to pay the mid-term acquisition tax shall be liable to pay the mid-term acquisition tax.

In principle, a taxpayer of the mid-term acquisition tax is a person liable for tax payment, and in the case of a facility lease, only a person who is deemed to have actually acquired a key machine from a facility leasing company and a lessee is a person liable for tax payment, and both are not a person liable for tax payment.

Article 105 of the Local Tax Act, Article 74 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Daegu Lease Corporation

Head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu

On October 22, 1991, the Defendant bears the Defendant’s burden of KRW 40,602,120 of the occasional acquisition tax for the Plaintiff in 191.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of taxation; and

In full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8-1 through 24, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 3 without dispute in its establishment, the following facts can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof.

(1) Pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Facilities Lease Industry (amended by Act No. 4450 of Dec. 27, 1991), the Plaintiff is a company established with the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy for the purpose of leasing facilities. From April 11, 1989 to February 26, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facilities leasing with the owner of the facilities, Kim Jong-ho, Jin Construction, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the owner of the facilities of the facilities for the purpose of leasing facilities. During the period from February 11, 1989 to February 26, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facilities leasing with the owner of the facilities for the purpose of purchasing the facilities under the name of the leased facilities without going through the Plaintiff’s selection. However, the essential content of the contract is the Plaintiff’s purchase of the facilities under the name of the leased facilities without going through the process of selling the facilities under the name of the leased facilities under the direct agreement between the Plaintiff and the lessee.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff, among May 26, 1989 and July 13, 1990, completed the registration of ownership in the name of the lessee at around that time, and registered the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of securing claims, such as facility rental fees, against the mid-term period, and the Defendant (hereinafter the Defendant delegated the authority to the Defendant by the head of Daegu Metropolitan City and Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 4 of the Local Tax Act) shall be deemed to have actually acquired the mid-term period by the lessee (the Defendant’s assertion in this case is the same, but in fact, it seems that the lessee, other than the Plaintiff, actually acquired the mid-term period, and imposed and notified the acquisition tax on the lessee and paid the acquisition tax in full.

(3) However, on May 28, 1990, the Minister of Home Affairs: (a) based on Article 105(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act; (b) based on Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 40,602,120 won (the sum of the acquisition value during the mid-term period is KRW 1,691,758,680; (b) multiplied by 2%, the sum of the acquisition value during the period is KRW 33,835,170; and (c) the Defendant erroneously calculated the amount of KRW 33,835,100 and calculated the amount of penalty tax in addition to the amount of penalty tax calculated by 20%).

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

The defendant asserts that the taxation disposition in this case was lawful by deeming the plaintiff as the person who actually acquired the mid-term skills in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of the Local Tax Act. The plaintiff asserts that the taxpayer of acquisition tax following the acquisition of the mid-term skills has already paid acquisition tax as the lessee, and the plaintiff is not a taxpayer, and that the taxation disposition in

Therefore, according to the main sentence of Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act, the acquisition tax shall be imposed on the person who acquires the newly acquired vehicle or heavy machine from the facility leasing company under the Act on the Promotion of Facilities Leasing Industry, and Article 105 (2) of the same Act provides that "The acquisition tax shall be imposed on the person who acquires it from the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the ................. even if the registration is not made, the acquisition shall be deemed to have been effected, and the owner or transferee of the relevant acquired article shall be deemed to have been the Do to be the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do to the Do.........

In light of the above provisions, Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act provides that "the owner or transferee of the relevant article shall be the person liable for tax payment" in this case, and the plaintiff and the lessee shall be the person liable for tax payment in the case. However, in addition, in the case of the remainder of the article except the article prescribed in the proviso, it seems that the former owner and the person who actually acquired the article without registration shall be the person liable for tax payment." Article 74 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "the former owner and the person who actually acquired the article without registration shall be the person liable for tax payment." Article 74 (2) of the same Act provides that "the former owner of the article shall be the person liable for tax payment" and "the person who actually acquired the article is the person liable for tax payment" in the name of the former owner and the former owner of the article 74 (3) of the Local Tax Act shall be deemed the person liable for tax payment in the case of the former owner of the article 74 (2) of the same Act.

However, in the case of this case, the plaintiff directly purchased a middle-term flag selected by the lessee, and the registration was just made in the name of the lessee. However, the right to collateral security, such as the lease fee, was established as a collateral, and a fixed amount of contract which is merely ten percent of the acquisition price, in principle, is paid at the expiration of the lease period, and the lessee is to acquire the middle-term flag, which constitutes a so-called financial lease, and the purchaser of the middle-term flag is not the plaintiff but the lessee.

Therefore, the taxation disposition of this case, which considered the plaintiff as the purchaser of the mid-term period, is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation due to its illegality is well-grounded, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)