The case holding that "real estate registration after establishment of a branch office in a large city" in Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to taxation of registration tax, does not fall under

If Gap Mutual Savings and Finance Company takes over all rights and obligations of Eul Mutual Savings and Finance according to the decision on the transfer of contracts, and registers the establishment of a branch of Eul to maintain Eul's head office as Gap's branch office, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land and building Gap in the future, it does not go against the purport of Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act for the suppression of population concentration in large cities, and thus, it does not constitute an object of heavy registration tax as "real estate registration tax after the establishment of branch office in large cities" under subparagraph 3 of the same Article.

Article 138(1) of the Local Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd.

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu10031 delivered on December 14, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As determined by the court below, on September 29, 1987, pursuant to the decision of the Minister of Finance and Economy's decision on contract transfer, the plaintiff succeeded to all rights and obligations of the non-party lender and registered the establishment of a branch to maintain the non-party company's headquarters as the joint branch of the plaintiff's lawsuit, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land and building in the plaintiff's future, it is not a new office that had not been previously established, but it is merely a change of the office of the non-party company's headquarters, which had already been located in accordance with the decision of the Minister of Finance and Economy to the office of the plaintiff's main office of the non-party company to maintain and maintain it. Therefore, this is not contrary to the purport of Article 138 (1) of the Local Tax Act, which is provided for in Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act for the control of population concentration in large cities.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the heavy taxation of the registration tax.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)