[1] The registration tax rate for real estate registration applicable where a person who is not an inheritor acquires ownership of real estate through a private donation

[2] Where a person, other than an inheritor, acquires a taxable object of acquisition tax due to a private donation, the reporting and payment period of acquisition tax

[3] Whether the price determination is unlawful solely on the ground that the officially assessed individual land price exceeds the appraisal price or the actual transaction price (negative)

[4] The method of calculating the officially assessed individual land price and the meaning of "inseparably in a relationship for use" where multiple parcels of land are collectively indivisible for use

[1] In full view of the language and text of Article 131(1)1 and Article 131(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same), the amendment history of the relevant provision, and the fact that it is difficult for a person, other than an inheritor, to find a reasonable ground for treating the case of acquiring ownership of real estate due to a private donation, unlike the case of acquiring ownership of real estate due to a general donation, to acquire ownership of real estate due to a private donation, constitutes “acquisition of ownership without compensation other than inheritance” under Article 131(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act, and thus, the registration tax rate of “15/1,000 of the value of real estate” is applicable.

[2] In full view of the language and text of Article 120(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same), the amendment history of the relevant provision, and the period of return and payment for six months for acquisition due to inheritance is deemed to have been given to the heir a period for choosing the renunciation of inheritance, etc. under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the return and payment of acquisition tax under Article 120(1) of the former Local Tax Act should be made within 30 days from the date of donor’s death where a person, other than an heir, acquires an object of taxation through private donation.

[3] The legitimacy of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is determined based on the procedures and methods stipulated by the relevant statutes, such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and it is not directly related to the market price or actual transaction price of the pertinent land. Thus, the determination of the price is not readily concluded as unlawful solely on the grounds that the officially assessed land price exceeds the appraised price or actual transaction price.

[4] Where multiple parcels of land are indivisible for the purpose of use, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to consider the whole parcels of land as one parcel and to investigate the characteristics of the land and evaluate the whole at a single price. Here, “case of indivisible relationship for the purpose of use” refers to a case in which the situation where the land is used as a group of land is deemed reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects, and in terms of the value formation of the pertinent land.

[1] Article 131 (1) (see current Article 28 (1)) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005) / [2] Article 120 (1) (see current Article 20 (1)) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005) / [3] Articles 9 and 21 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act / [4] Articles 9 and 21 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu11931 delivered on September 20, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3211) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12080 Delivered on July 15, 2005 / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Du8824 Delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1983) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1428 Delivered on May 26, 2005

Busan Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Kckel et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Hai-ro, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu1550 decided January 11, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below held that the non-party, the representative director of the plaintiff, entered into a contract with the plaintiff on May 3, 2005 to donate the land of this case to the plaintiff on May 20, 2005, and died on May 20, 2005. The court below held that the defendant's imposition of acquisition tax and the size of the land of this case as land annexed to the high-class recreation center under Article 84-3 (4) 5 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19082, Oct. 7, 2005) is legitimate by applying the provisions of Article 112 (2) 4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7843, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) to the third-class tourism hotel, including the land of this case, and the size of the land of this case falling under the above 380 square meters.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's findings of fact and judgment are justified. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to omission of judgment or acquisition tax of high-class recreation centers as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 131(1)1 of the former Local Tax Act provides that the registration tax rate for the registration of real estate following the acquisition of ownership by inheritance under subparagraph 1 shall be 3/1,000 of the real estate price shall be farmland, and the other real estate shall be 8/1,000 of the real estate price, and the registration tax rate for the registration of real estate following the acquisition of ownership by free, other than inheritance, shall be 15/1,000 of the real estate price.

In full view of the language and text of each provision, the amendment history of the relevant provision, and the fact that it is difficult to find a reasonable ground to treat the ownership of real estate differently from the acquisition of ownership of real estate due to a private donation, in cases where a person, other than an inheritor, acquires ownership of real estate due to a private donation, it is reasonable to deem that the acquisition of ownership of real estate by a person, other than an inheritor, constitutes “acquisition of ownership without compensation other than inheritance” as stipulated in Article 131(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act, and thus, the registration tax rate of 1

The court below held that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of land of this case by reason of private donation on May 20, 2005 constitutes “acquisition of ownership without compensation other than inheritance” under Article 131(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act, and that the registration tax rate of 15/1,000 of the real estate price should be applied to the real estate registration is based on the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration tax rate of the real estate registration due to private donation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

After compiling the evidence of employment, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the defendant's disposition of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust and good faith as provided in Article 82 of the former Local Tax Act and Articles 15 and 18 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007), and that there was no justifiable reason for not imposing penalty on the plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to justifiable grounds for not imposing the principle of trust and good faith or additional tax, as otherwise

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Article 120 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that a person who acquires an object of taxation of acquisition tax shall return and pay the amount of tax within 30 days from the date of acquisition, but shall return and pay the amount of tax within 6 months from the date of commencement of the inheritance.

In full view of the language and text of the above provision and the history of amendment of the relevant provision, and the fact that the period of return and payment for six months for acquisition through inheritance appears to have been given to the heir under Article 1019(1) of the Civil Act by taking account of the fact that a non-inheritors acquires objects of taxation through private donation, it is reasonable to interpret that a return and payment of acquisition tax under Article 120(1) of the former Local Tax Act should be made within 30 days from the date of donor’s death.

The court below held that the Defendant’s imposition of additional tax on acquisition tax from June 20, 2005 on the premise that the Plaintiff’s payment period of acquisition tax as to the acquisition of the land in this case is 30 days from May 20, 2005, the date of Non-Party’s death, is lawful, based on the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the payment period of acquisition tax, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

5. Ground of appeal No. 5

The legitimacy of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined based on the procedures and methods prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and it is not directly related to the market price or actual market price of the relevant land. Thus, merely on the ground that the officially assessed land price exceeds the appraised price or actual market price, it cannot be readily concluded that the determination of the price is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12080, Jul. 15, 2005, etc.).

Meanwhile, in a case where multiple parcels of land are in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use as a group, it is reasonable to regard the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to investigate the characteristics of land as one parcel, and evaluate the whole at a single price as a whole. Here, “case of an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use” refers to a case where the situation in which a group of land is used as a group of land is in a relationship that is deemed reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects and reasonable in terms of the value formation of the relevant land (see Supreme Court Decision 205Du1428, May 26, 2005

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. ① The land of this case and the building owner of this case were not identical until the plaintiff acquired the land of this case through private donation, and it is difficult to view that the land price should be reflected in the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, solely on the ground that the land of this case and the building owner of this case were constructed on the land of this case, such as that the land of this case cannot be deemed to have been established originally. ② Since the land of this case and the reverse Tridong (number omitted) are used as part of the site for the land of this case, it would be reasonable to evaluate the whole land of this case as the land of this case as a group of land. ③ According to the data on the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price of this case as of January 1, 204, the defendant would have determined the officially assessed individual land price of this case in accordance with the procedure and method stipulated in the related Acts and subordinate statutes, ④ According to the appraisal result of each of this case’s land of this case by considering the corporate tax related case with the plaintiff and its reverse land of this case, the land of this case, the appraisal price of this case, 1800000,00 won.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of individual land price as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

6. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)