[1] The case holding that, in a case where part of the facilities of a private-owned building is owned by the construction company in principle, but the Administrator of the Korean National Railroad grants exemption from the duty of restoration of state-owned railroad property without compensation, such facilities can only be owned by the State only when they are impossible or inappropriate to restore to the original state, and it does not constitute non-taxation subject to acquisition tax under Article 106 (2) of the Local Tax Act on the ground that they do not constitute real estate acquired on the condition of reversion or donation to the State, since they do not constitute real estate acquired on the condition of reversion or donation at the time of acquisition

[2] The scope and scope of "acquisition price" under Article 82-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and in a case where it cannot be viewed as "acquisition price of an article or right which is not subject to acquisition", whether it can be viewed as included in acquisition price of an article and can be used as acquisition tax base (negative)

[3] The case holding that the construction cost of temporary facilities, including temporary stations, installed to replace service facilities during the construction period of a private company, cannot be viewed as the cost paid for the acquisition of a historical building itself, and it does not include the cost of the building in the acquisition price

[1] Article 106 (2) of the Local Tax Act / [2] Article 82-3 (see current Article 82-2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010) / [3] Article 82-3 (see current Article 82-2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4155 Decided January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 817) Supreme Court Decision 2009Du5343 Decided September 10, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1681)

Hyundai Asia District Court Decision 2006Na11448 delivered on August 1, 200

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Yellowdo-do, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu56 decided June 15, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal No.1

Article 71(1)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "after filing a return on and paying the local tax within the due date for filing a return under this Act, where the tax base amount and the value, etc. based on the calculation of construction expenses, the interest calculation of construction funds, final and conclusive judgment, etc. are changed or determined by the settlement of construction expenses, the calculation of interest, and the final and conclusive judgment, etc., a revised return may be filed." Article 72(1)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "where a return

원심은 채용 증거를 종합하여, 철도청장과 현대산업개발 주식회사 및 금강개발산업 주식회사는 1998. 11. 18. 경부고속철도 용산역세권에 용산민자역사(이하 ‘이 사건 민자역사’라 한다)를 건설하는 내용의 용산역세권개발 1단계(민자역사) 사업추진협약(이하 ‘이 사건 협약’이라 한다)을 체결한 다음, 이 사건 민자역사의 건설 및 운영을 목적으로 공동출자하여 원고를 설립한 사실, 이 사건 협약 제12조에는 원고가 설치하는 시설물 중 역무시설과 국유철도사업에 직접 필요로 하는 시설은 준공과 동시에 국가의 소유로 무상귀속되고, 나머지 시설은 원칙적으로 원고의 소유로 하되 국유철도재산에 대한 점용허가기간(30년 이내, 공사기간 제외)이 경과한 후 철도청장이 원상회복의무를 면제한 때에는 국가에 무상귀속시킨다고 규정되어 있는 사실, 원고는 2001. 1.경부터 건설공사를 시작하여 2005. 3.경 서울 용산구 한강로2가 40-999 외 4필지 지상에 역무시설(용도 : 철도역사, 연면적 : 26,427.99㎡)과 상업시설(용도 : 판매 및 영업시설·문화집회시설·업무시설·근린생활시설, 연면적 : 235,756.09㎡)로 이루어진 지하 3층, 지상 9층 규모의 이 사건 민자역사를 완공한 사실, 원고는 이 사건 민자역사를 건설하는 과정에서, ① 2001. 4. 30.경 현장사무소로 사용할 가설건축물(경량철골조 슬래브지붕 사무실 합계 1,063㎡)을 건축하고 그에 대하여 2001. 5. 30. 과세표준액을 103,939,822원으로 하여 취득세 2,078,790원, 농어촌특별세 208,870원을, ② 2001. 9. 20.경 가설건축물을 건축하고 그에 대하여 2001. 10. 20. 과세표준액을 39,695,259원으로 하여 취득세 793,900원, 농어촌특별세 79,390원을, ③ 2003. 1. 17. 용산역 임시역사로 사용할 가설건축물 1,790.84㎡를 건축 또는 취득하고 그에 대하여 2003. 2. 14. 과세표준액을 301,472,244원으로 하여 취득세 6,029,440원, 농어촌특별세 602,940원을, ④ 2004. 4. 2.경 북측 주차장 연면적 14,025.39㎡를 신축하여 준공 전 사용허가를 받고 그에 대하여 2004. 5. 3. 과세표준액을 25,456,700,524원으로 하여 취득세 509,134,010원, 농어촌특별세 50,913,400원을, ⑤ 2004. 9. 21. 판매 및 영업시설, 영화관 192,230.36㎡를 신축하여 준공 전 사용허가를 받고 그에 대하여 2004. 10. 21. 과세표준액을 328,037,538,303원으로 하여 취득세 6,640,598,770원, 농어촌특별세 664,059,870원을 각 피고에게 신고납부한 사실(이하 위 각 신고납부를 순차로 ‘이 사건 제1 내지 5차 과세처분’이라 한다), 그 후 원고는 2005. 4. 26. 건설교통부장관으로부터 이 사건 민자역사에 대한 준공확인필증을 교부받은 후, 2005. 5. 26. 이 사건 민자역사 중 역무시설을 제외한 나머지 부분(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)에 대한 총공사비를 479,832,449,873원으로 확정하여 취득세 9,691,486,863원 등을 산정하고, 여기에서 이미 납부한 취득세 7,158,634,910원과 농어촌특별세 715,863,470원을 공제하여 취득세 2,532,851,950원, 농어촌특별세 253,285,190원을 신고납부하였는데(이하 위 신고납부를 ‘이 사건 최종 과세처분’이라 한다), 그 당시 이 사건 제1 내지 4차 과세처분과 관련하여서는 그 과세표준액 및 세액계산의 근거가 되는 면적·가액 등을 변경하지 아니한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 이 사건 최종 과세처분은 이 사건 제1 내지 4차 과세처분에 대하여 증액수정신고의 관계에 있지 아니하므로 이 사건 제1 내지 4차 과세처분은 이 사건 최종 과세처분과는 별개의 독립한 과세처분이고, 따라서 원심에서의 확장청구 중 이 사건 제1 내지 4차 과세처분 부분은 이미 제소기간이 도과되어 부적법하다고 판단하였다.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the return of increase under the Local Tax Act.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 106 (2) of the Local Tax Act provides that "No acquisition tax shall be imposed on real estate acquired on the condition that it reverts or donated to the State, a local government, or a local government association (including the case to which it belongs by the method under Article 4 (3) of the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure belongs)."

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as a whole, and determined that the building of this case does not immediately belong to the State immediately after the expiration of 30 years of the Plaintiff's occupancy permit period, but can, in principle, be owned by the State only when it is impossible or inappropriate to restore it to the original state, but it cannot be determined that it is impossible to restore it to the original state at the time of acquisition. Thus, it does not constitute real estate acquired on the condition of reversion or donation to the State, and thus, it does not constitute the tax exemption subject to acquisition tax under

In light of the above provisions and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to non-taxation of acquisition tax under Article 106 (2) of the Local Tax Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The "acquisition price" referred to in Article 82-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010) means that the cause for payment has occurred or become final and conclusive prior to the date of acquisition of a taxable object and it can be deemed that not only the price of the object itself (direct expenses) but also the acquisition procedure expenses (such as acquisition fund, interest, design expenses, etc.) equivalent thereto are included in indirect expenses. However, if it cannot be deemed as the price of an object itself because it is related to an object or right not subject to acquisition, it shall be deemed that the cause for payment occurred or becomes final and conclusive prior to the time of acquisition of the object subject to taxation, but shall not be deemed as included in the acquisition price of the object concerned and shall not be deemed as the acquisition tax base (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu41555, Jan. 26, 196).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts, and determined that the costs of installing temporary facilities of this case, including temporary house built and removed by the plaintiff to replace service facilities during the construction period of the private house company of this case, cannot be deemed costs paid for the acquisition of the building of this case. Thus, the costs of installing temporary facilities of this case are not included in the acquisition price

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax base of acquisition tax.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)