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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 28(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) provides that “registration following the establishment of a corporation, or the establishment of a branch or sub-office in a large city” under subparagraph 1 of Article 28 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (excluding an industrial complex subject to the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act) shall be construed as “an over-concentration control region under Article 6 of the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (excluding an industrial complex subject to the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act)” and the registration license tax rate is more severe than that of ordinary corporate registration.

Meanwhile, Article 45(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27710, Dec. 30, 2016) provides that “Article 27(3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope of transfer to a large city in applying Article 28(2)2 of the Act,” and the main sentence of Article 27(3) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27710, Dec. 30, 2016) provides that “The main sentence of Article 27(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27710, Dec. 30, 201) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope of transfer to a large city.”

The purpose of the instant legal provision is to regulate the transfer of a corporation’s head office, etc. to a large city on the same ground as that of establishing a corporation’s head office, etc. in a large city, and as such, the transfer is naturally premised on the transfer of a corporation’s head office, etc. from an existing place to a new place, the requirement is that the transfer is in a place outside a large city which