Whether the registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act is subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act where a real estate that is not equipped with human and material business facilities at the location of its head office within a large city is equipped with human and material business facilities of its head office

The purpose of Article 138(1)3 of the Local Tax Act is to impose registration tax on real estate following the establishment of a corporation, the establishment of a branch, etc. in a large city, and the relocation of a corporation's head office, branch, etc. into a large city in order to prevent population concentration caused by the inflow of population into a large city, and on real estate following the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a branch office, etc., and on real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a branch office. Thus, if a corporation, which was established in a large city, acquires another real estate located in the large city and actually relocates its head office, the registration tax under the provisions of the Local Tax Act shall be imposed on the newly acquired real estate. However, in light of the above purport of the above provision, the establishment of a branch office in a newly acquired real estate shall be done formally, and in fact, the establishment of a new head office in a real estate shall be deemed to fall under the case where a new head office is installed without any human and physical facilities at the former location, and thus, it cannot be deemed to fall under the requirements for registration tax and registration tax.

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Kwaton Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gyeyang-si (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu36301 delivered on June 16, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on March 18, 1980 that the plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of housing construction, real estate sale, lease, etc. with its head office on April 6, 1995 at the location of the main office of the 488-10-6, the branch office of the 1118-6, Suwon-si, the transfer of its head office to the 10-6 branch office of the 1995. The place was only a restaurant operated by the representative director of the plaintiff company at the time, and there was no human and physical facilities for the plaintiff's business. The plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case at the location of the 3rd-si, Seoyang-gu, 194, where the auction procedure was in progress, and acquired the real estate of this case at the location of the 15-year branch office and the real estate of this case at the location of the 195-year branch office and the registration of the transfer of the ownership of the real estate of this case was unlawful.

However, the purport of the Local Tax Act is to impose registration tax on real estate following the establishment of a juristic person in a large city, the establishment of a branch office, etc., and the relocation of a juristic person into a large city, and on real estate after its establishment, establishment, and relocation in order to prevent population concentration in a large city. Thus, if a juristic person, which has established its head office in a large city, acquires another real estate located in the large city and actually relocates its head office, it shall satisfy the requirements for imposition of registration tax under the Local Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7207, Feb. 13, 1990). However, in light of the above purport of the Local Tax Act, the establishment of a newly acquired real estate is formally a form of establishment of a new real estate to prevent population concentration in a large city. In fact, even if it is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the Plaintiff cannot be said to fall under the real estate of this case, since it does not have any human and physical facilities installed at the location of the former head office.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to registration tax heavy requirements, and it is clear that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)