[Case Number] High Court Decision 2014Do0390 (Law No. 23, 2014)

[C] Acquisition [Types of Determination]

[Summary of Decision] The case where the claimant and the claimant serve as the representative shall be liable to pay acquisition tax for each acquisition act as the subject of individual rights and obligations, and thus the disposition agency did not err in making a disposition to divide the claimant's request for correction.

[Related Acts] Article 7 of the Local Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of disposition

A. On February 29, 2012, after the applicant newly constructed OO (hereinafter referred to as “OO”) and obtained approval for use on February 29, 2012, the applicant reported acquisition tax on March 6, 2012 on the OO of the construction price of the key building as the tax base. The disposition agency imposed an OOO as the tax base, which is the standard market price lower than the standard market price. The claimant paid the same amount on the same day.

B. On March 6, 2012, when filing and paying the above acquisition tax, the claimant filed and paid the registration of ownership transfer to the OOO (hereinafter “OO”) that the claimant holds office as the representative, and the OOO reported and paid the acquisition tax and other OOO as the tax base on the same day.

C. On October 18, 2013, an applicant filed a request for correction to the effect that the refund of OO members, such as acquisition tax already paid, should be changed, and the disposition agency rejected the request on October 22, 2013.

(d) the appellant appealed and filed an OO appeal.

2. Opinions of the requester and disposition agency;

A. Appellant's assertion

The claimant intends to obtain a loan from a financial institution after obtaining approval for use of the key building, but the person in charge of financial institution applied for a loan under the name of the juristic person because it is impossible to do so, and the claimant paid the acquisition tax, etc. for the key building, and made the registration of ownership transfer by selling it to OO on the same day after the claimant paid the acquisition tax, etc. for the key building.

As a result, the claimant did not know clearly the taxation requirements, procedures, etc. under the tax law and caused acquisition tax to be paid more than two times, the rejection of this case's request for correction is unfair.

(b)Opinion of the Administration;

Although the claimant asserts that the acquisition tax on the building at issue was double paid, since an individual and a corporation are classified as the subject of each right and duty, it cannot be said that the claimant acquired the building at issue as the representative of the OO and the OO acquired it.

In addition, on February 29, 2012, the claimant completed the registration of initial ownership in his/her name and thereafter transferred ownership registration to the OO for reasons of sale is confirmed in the register of register, building ledger, and the book value of the corporation submitted at the time of the registration of acquisition tax by OO. The acquisition tax on real estate is not imposed by taking advantage of the profits gained from the use, profit-making, and disposal of the real estate, but rather by taking advantage of the profits gained from the use, profit-making, and disposal of the real estate, but by all forms of acquisition per se regardless of whether the real estate acquisitor acquires the ownership of the substance substantially complete (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9491, Apr. 12, 207).

3. Hearing and determination

(a)a dispute:

Since the claimant newly constructed a key building and pays acquisition tax on it, he/she has paid it to the OO as the representative on the same day and paid the acquisition tax again, the right and wrong of the claim claim that it constitutes double payment.

(b)the relevant legislation;

Records in the attached Form.

(c)fact-finding relations and judgments;

(1) According to the construction contract agreement entered into between OO and OO (O. 5 August 201), OO appears to have entered into an agreement with OO to begin on August 5, 201 and complete work on November 15, 201 with OO on a civil funeral hall (point building).

(2)According to the certified transcript of corporate register of OO, the head office of OO is located in OO or OO, and the representative of OO is the claimant and the office of OO is established on July 9, 2007.

(3) According to a certificate of completion of change of construction participants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da10199, Sept. 6, 201) and a certificate of change of the purpose of construction, substantial repair, and change of the purpose of use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1019, Sept. 28,

(iv)According to the certified copy of the register and the general building ledger of the building in question, the building in question was approved on February 29, 2012, and on March 6, 2012, the applicant was registered to preserve ownership and was expressed to have been registered to the OO in the OO on the same day on the same day.

(5) On the other hand, real estate acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that takes up the fact that it is the transfer of goods and imposes the tax-bearing capacity recognizing and imposing the transfer of goods, and thus, it does not impose on the purchaser of the real estate the profits gained by using, earning, and disposing of the real estate. Thus, the "real estate acquisition" under Article 105 (1) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221 of Mar. 31, 2010) is interpreted to include all cases of real estate acquisition in the form of transfer of ownership, regardless of whether the purchaser of the real estate acquires the real right substantially complete ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9491, Apr. 12, 207);

According to the registry of the key building and the registry of the general building, etc., the key building was the registration of preservation of ownership of the applicant on March 6, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was made to the OO on the ground of sale. Although the claimant is the representative of the OO, the claimant and the OOO should pay acquisition tax on each acquisition act as the subject of individual rights and obligations. Therefore, it is judged that there was no error in the disposition rejecting the request for correction of the case filed on the ground that the claimant made double payment of acquisition tax, etc. on the acquisition

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered by Article 123 (4) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Articles 81 and 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the petition for the trial has no merit as a result of the review.