Whether the registration of the site and building acquired by the corporation for the purpose of the branch and business place is subject to taxation among the registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, within five years after moving

If a corporation relocates its head office outside Seoul and continuously operates its head office in Seoul while carrying out its business affairs, it shall be deemed that it established its head office in Seoul and its head office on the date of its relocation. Thus, if the said corporation acquired a site or building for using it as its head office and its business place within five years thereafter and completed its registration, it shall be subject to taxation of registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

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

Sammt Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Hamk-appellee

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu427 delivered on February 24, 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 affirmed the judgment of the court below, based on evidence, that the plaintiff company was a corporation established on August 18, 1978, which had its head office in Jung-gu, Seoul and 19-1, and transferred its head office in Jung-gu, Seoul to Gyeonggi-gu, 1979.3.12, which had been continuously engaged in the business of the company, and 4-22, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, 1984, which had been engaged in the business of the company, acquired the building site and building of this case and completed its registration, and received a business registration certificate for the new establishment of the branch office after the transfer of the Seoul office to the outside of Seoul. Accordingly, the plaintiff company transferred its head office to the outside of Seoul, and continued to conduct the business of the Seoul office in its head office, and therefore, it should be deemed that the Seoul branch office or branch office was established in the Seoul 197, and since it acquired the building site and building of this case in March 7, 1984.

In light of the provisions of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the purport of the above provision, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the purport of the above provision, and there is no error in the calculation of the period after the establishment of a branch, etc.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)