Where a registration of ownership of a ship has been made in the name of a lessee for convenience at least 20 hours purchased by a lease company under a contract for facility lease, whether the lessee is liable to pay the acquisition tax pursuant to Article 105 (1) of the former Local Tax Act.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 105(1) and 104 subparag. 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), and Articles 743 and 745 of the Commercial Act, a person who entered into a sales contract for 20 or more vessels shall be liable to acquire their ownership and pay acquisition tax on the said acquisition even if they fail to make a registration under the Ship Act. If 20 or more vessels are acquired under a sales contract for facility leasing, a supplier and a person who enters into a sales contract for the said vessels and pays the price for the acquisition thereof is a facility leasing company, even if the facility leasing company fails to register its ownership in its own future, it does not constitute an acquisition of real estate under Article 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act. Even if the ownership registration has been made in the name of a lessee for convenience, it shall not be deemed that the vessel is paid to the above leasing company only after the expiration of the period of facility leasing contract.

Articles 104 subparag. 1 and 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993); Article 74(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994); Article 74(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Articles 743 and 745 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

The head of Jung-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu7730 delivered on September 1, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s tax amount of KRW 2,837,90,00,000, which was calculated by deducting the ownership transfer registration of the above vessel from the acquisition of the above vessel from the acquisition of the above vessel under Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, on December 24, 198, because the Plaintiff Company had no legal obligation to acquire the above vessel from the non-party Han-il Lease Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “ Han-il Lease”) for the first time on December 24, 198, and four vessels purchased from Han-il Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., for the first time on December 26, 198. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s tax amount of KRW 337,937,00,000 from the acquisition price of the above vessel on the ground that the above vessel had no legal obligation to obtain the ownership transfer registration of the vessel under Article 19 of the Local Tax Act.

Article 105 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter the same) provides that acquisition tax shall be imposed on the acquisitor with respect to the acquisition of real estate. Article 104 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that real estate means mining right and fishing right of land, and Articles 743 and 745 of the Commercial Act provide that the transfer of right to a ship of 20 tons or more takes effect only by an agreement between the parties concerned, but it shall not be set up against a third party unless the registration is entered in the certificate of ship's nationality. In full view of the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, where a sales contract for a ship of 20 tons or more is not registered under the Ship Act, the person who entered into a sales contract shall be liable to pay acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act for the acquisition of such a ship, and even if a company which enters into a sales contract for the ship with respect to the lease of 140 tons or more, it shall be deemed as one owner.

According to the records, the above Hanil Lease Co., Ltd. purchased the instant vessels selected by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. from suppliers and leased facilities to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., but the purchase and delivery procedure concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on the instant vessels under the above Hanil Lease Co., Ltd., and paid the purchase price to suppliers, and filed a return on acquisition tax with the Defendant on three occasions on January 18, 1989 and September 27, 199 and May 31, 191. All of the instant vessels were part of 20 tons or more, and the ownership transfer registration or ownership preservation registration of the instant passenger vessels was made in the name of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. for common practices of the lessor Co., Ltd. and for the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.’s business convenience.

For this reason, the person who acquired the ownership of the ship of this case in relation to the facility leasing contract for the ship of this case is one lease which is the above company that concluded a sales contract with the supplier and paid the purchase price for the ship of this case, and the plaintiff company, the lessee, merely received the registration of ownership only for the practice and business convenience of the facility leasing business, and it does not constitute the acquisition of real estate under Article 105 (1) of the former Local Tax Act. Therefore, the court below's determination that the plaintiff company acquired the ship of this case on each date is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of real estate under Article 105 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, since it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)