A. The meaning and purport of Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

(b) A person liable to pay acquisition tax where the facility leasing company registers the mid-term machine acquired with compensation under the name of the lessee of the facility;

A. Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "a person who has de facto acquired" means a person who fails to meet the formal requirements for the acquisition of ownership (registration and record) but satisfies the substantive requirements for the acquisition of ownership, as in Article 105(2) of the same Act. The purport of the above provision is to prevent the user of a lending facility from imposing acquisition tax on the user of the lending facility solely on the fact that he/she has registered in his/her name even though he/she fails to meet the substantive requirements for the acquisition of ownership in accordance with the special provisions on registration and registration under the Act

B. In a case where a facility leasing company entered into a sales contract with a manufacturer and paid the purchase price to it, the purpose of acquisition is to provide the facility leasing for the purpose of the facility leasing, or the user of the leased facility selected a mid-termer and received the purchase procedure directly from the manufacturer on its own account and on its own account, or the ownership is registered in the name of the lessee, but the mortgage was established in the name of the facility leasing company. Thus, even if the facility leasing company did not register in its own name, it constitutes “when it actually acquires the heavy flag” under Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act, and thus, is liable to pay acquisition tax.

Article 105 (1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 74 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16850 delivered on September 28, 1993 (dong) 92Nu16904 delivered on September 28, 1993 (dong) 93Nu3660 delivered on September 28, 1993

Daegu Lease Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daegu Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu894 delivered on October 7, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the plaintiff, concluded a contract for facility leasing that the plaintiff purchased a mid-term machine selected by each lessee and lent it to the lessee without going through the plaintiff, and the user of the facility directly purchased the facility in the name of the plaintiff while paying the rent to the plaintiff during the lease period, and the plaintiff paid the rent to the plaintiff at a 10% amount of the acquisition cost if the lease period expires, the plaintiff paid the rent to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired the facility in the name of the user of the facility and registered the facility in the name of the user of the facility in order to secure the claim for facility leasing, and that Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act does not directly anticipate the facility leasing in the name of the user of the facility. If the provision imposing the tax liability to the user of the facility leasing is not a provision to secure the facility leasing the facility leasing, the court below deemed the person liable for tax payment under Article 74 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act to be deemed as having been a person liable for tax payment.

(2) According to the records, the plaintiff purchased a middle-term flag selected by the user of each lease facility from the manufacturer and lent it to the user of the lease facility. The purchase procedure concluded a facility lease contract that the user of the lease facility directly conducts on the plaintiff's name and account, and concluded a mid-term sales contract with the manufacturer and paid the purchase price to the manufacturer. However, there are some inappropriate expressions in the judgment of the court below, but it can be deemed that the court below held the above purport. Thus, there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

(3) Article 105(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act shall be imposed on the owner of a facility under the name of the owner of the facility by taking advantage of the fact that it is the transfer of the facility and taking advantage of the actual source of taxation, and it does not include all cases of acquisition by transfer of ownership regardless of whether the purchaser actually acquires ownership (Article 84Nu52, Nov. 27, 1984; 87Nu919, Apr. 25, 198; 919; 91, May 12, 1992; 91Nu10411, May 12, 1992; 207Da10671, Jan. 17, 207).

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not register in its name, it is liable to pay acquisition tax because the Plaintiff falls under the category of “when it actually acquires” as provided by Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act, and that the Plaintiff cannot be exempted from tax liability pursuant to Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which is natural in light of the legislative intent of the same Article. Meanwhile, the fact that the instant facility leasing contract constitutes a financial lease cannot be deemed as having actually acquired a key machine by a lessee, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff satisfies the substantial requirements for acquisition of ownership only by paying the agreed price to the Plaintiff after the expiration of the lease period. Such interpretation conforms to the legislative intent of the above provision of the Enforcement Decree to prevent all the facility leasing company and the lessee from imposing acquisition tax on all the users of the facility solely on the ground that the lease contract is registered in the name of the user.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the Plaintiff is not a de facto acquisitor on the ground that the instant facility leasing contract constitutes a financial lease, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the “person who has acquired a de facto acquisition” under Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, the argument on this point

(4) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)