Whether registration of real estate acquired by a juristic person to transfer to a seller is subject to heavy registration tax (negative)

The registration that is acquired by a corporation subject to heavy registration tax under Article 120 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9274 of Dec. 30, 1978) in order to use directly for its business refers to the registration of the acquisition of real estate which has the fixed property nature of continuously and regularly used directly by the corporation as an office or factory necessary for the performance of its business. Therefore, the registration of the acquisition of real estate in order to transfer the real estate to the purchaser after construction and completion of the building on the land of the corporation which is conducting civil engineering, construction, real estate sale and lease business as an object of the business, construction of the building on the land and the office, shall not be subject to heavy registration tax because the registration of the acquisition of real estate with the fixed property nature directly used for its business is not related to the acquisition of the real estate directly used by the corporation. This is not different depending on the establishment, establishment, transfer of the corporation

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3154 of Dec. 6, 1978), Article 120 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9274 of Dec. 30, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu73 Decided June 26, 1979, 79Nu75 Decided August 31, 1979, 80Nu98 Decided July 28, 1981, 82Nu42 Decided June 22, 1982

Seocho Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Director of the Attorney Park Jong-won

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu744 delivered on May 27, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 3154, Dec. 6, 1978) which was effective at the time of the instant case, the term “real estate registration as to the establishment of a corporation and the relocation of its branch or sub-branch in a large city and the relocation of its branch or sub-branch into a large city” means five times the tax rates provided in Article 131 of the same Act when real estate is established, established, or transferred after relocation. However, according to Article 131(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 9274, Dec. 30, 1978) which was enacted upon delegation of Article 102(2) of the same Act, the term “real estate registration as to the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of its main office or sub-branch and the relocation of its branch or sub-branch into a new building to the effect that it is not necessary for the establishment of a corporation and its relocation into a new and new real estate for the purpose of its establishment.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)