Where the acquisition value is verified by the account books, etc. even though the acquisitor filed a report under Article 111(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3752, Aug. 8, 1984);

According to Article 111 (1), (2) and (5), Article 130 (1), (2), and (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3752 of Aug. 8, 1984), the value of the acquisition at the time of acquisition as the tax base for acquisition tax or registration tax under Article 111 (1) or 130 (1) of the same Act refers to the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of real estate (taxable goods) as a matter of principle, and each of the above Article 111 (2) of the same Act refers to the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of real estate (taxable goods). If the person (registered, etc.) has no tax base or the reported value falls short of the standard market value of the acquisition, it shall be based on the standard market value of the taxation, while Article 111 (5) (Article 130 (3) of the same Act) of the same Act provides that the tax base of acquisition at the time of acquisition shall be determined by the person who acquired the tax base after registration (1).

Articles 111 and 130 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3752 of Aug. 8, 1984)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1252 delivered on September 9, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff acquired the building of this case as the reasons indicated in its decision, and paid the defense tax on the acquisition tax, registration tax, and the registration tax amount to the defendant under the Local Tax Act, as stated in its decision, which was calculated based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act, and the defendant paid the defense tax on the portion of the acquisition tax, registration tax, and the registration tax, the contract amount agreed upon by the plaintiff between the non-party Hongjin Construction Co., Ltd. was 374,00,000 won, and the said contract amount was determined by the corporate book, and the said contract amount was determined as actual acquisition value of the building

Examining the relevant provisions of the Local Tax Act, which were in force at the time of the establishment of taxation requirements in this case, the tax base of acquisition tax under Article 111(1) of the Act shall be the price at the time of its acquisition, and the tax base under the provisions of paragraph (2) through paragraph (1) of this Article shall be reported by the acquisitor (as prescribed by the Municipal Ordinance), and the tax base under the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Article shall be the tax base if there is no indication of the reported or reported value or if the reported value falls short of the standard market price under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In addition, the provisions of the proviso of paragraph (2) of this Article provide that the actual acquisition price shall be determined based on a notarial deed or corporate account books, etc. in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the provisions of Article 130(1), (2), and (3) of the Act shall

In comparison with the above relevant provisions, the price at the time of acquisition as stipulated in Article 111(1) or 130(1) of the Act means, in principle, the actual acquisition price at the time of acquisition of real estate (taxable goods) as stipulated as the tax base for acquisition tax or registration tax. Article 111(2) of the Act provides that if there is no report or a declaration price is below the standard market price, it shall be based on the standard market price. On the other hand, Article 111(5) of the Act (Article 130(3) of the Act with respect to registration tax, the acquisition price shall be determined by the actual acquisition price regardless of the report of the person who acquired it, and if it is proved under Article 111(2) of the Act that the actual acquisition price should be determined by the acquisition price regardless of the report of the person who acquired it, and even if it is proved under Article 111(2) of the Act, the tax base at the time of acquisition shall be determined by the law.

In this view, the court below is just in holding that the contract amount under the contract agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party Hongjin General Construction Co., Ltd. shall be based on the above contract amount, so long as the contract amount is proved by the corporate account books of the non-party company, the tax base amount of the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be based on the above contract amount actually acquired, and there

In theory, the purport that since the acquisitor makes a tax base return under Article 111(2) of the Act and the reported value is not less than the standard market value of the taxation, even if the actual acquisition value is proved by each subparagraph of Article 111(5) of the Act, it cannot be considered as the tax base, or it cannot be accepted as the opinion of the reading group. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the disposition of this case is not in violation of the principle of tax equity, since there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the acquisition tax and registration tax have been imposed only on the newly constructed buildings according to the standard market price, and as long as it is legitimate to impose acquisition tax and registration tax on the newly constructed buildings according to the acquisition price, there is still room for additional taxation by acquisition value on other newly constructed buildings adjacent to the building of this case on which the tax price was imposed according to the standard market price. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument also 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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)