The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 105 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7678 of Aug. 4, 2005), acquisition tax is imposed on a person who acquires real estate, etc. which is an object of taxation of acquisition tax (paragraph (1)), and it is deemed that acquisition if it is actually acquired even if registration, etc. is not made under the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the

(2) “ de facto acquisition” refers to a case in which ownership, such as registration, generally fails to meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership, but satisfies the substantial requirements for acquisition of ownership, such as payment of the price.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du17067 Decided November 12, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Du6761 Decided June 30, 2006, etc.). However, where a real estate seller’s registration under a contractual title trust was transferred from a seller to a title trustee, the title truster is not a party to the sales contract, and the title trust agreement entered into with the title trustee is null and void, and thus the seller or the title trustee is not entitled to file a claim for the registration

Therefore, even if a title truster paid the purchase price, it cannot be deemed as having actually acquired the relevant real estate, and thus, the title truster is not liable to pay acquisition tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du14804, Oct. 25, 2012). Meanwhile, distinguishing between whether a title trust agreement is a third party registered title trust or a contract title trust is a final and conclusive issue. If a title truster, in purchasing real estate through another person, decided the purchaser’s name in the name of the third party, barring any special circumstance, such title trust relationship ought to be deemed as a contract title trust, barring any special circumstance, such as where the title truster, not the title truster, entered into a contract with the intent to directly bring about

(see Supreme Court Order 2013S133, Oct. 7, 2013). 2. The reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows.