logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1998. 7. 24. 선고 98두8216 판결
[지방세부과처분취소][공1998.9.1.(65),2265]
Main Issues

The meaning of Article 84-5 (1) (proviso) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act prescribing the grounds for exception not to impose acquisition tax even in cases where a non-business passenger car is acquired in excess of one unit per household.

Summary of Judgment

Article 84-5 (1) (proviso) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489, Oct. 1, 1997) provides for the exception that acquisition tax shall not be imposed even if a non-business passenger car is acquired in excess of one unit per household. Article 84-5 (1) (proviso) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489, Oct. 1, 1997) provides that "a person who has earned earned income under the Income Tax Act, business income, or farmland income under the Local Tax Act and has married or has been 30 years or more shall acquire one motor vehicle, respectively." In addition, in the context of subparagraph 1 of the above proviso, it is difficult to view that the phrase "limited to the income requirements in the former part of the Act" can be applied to "the lineal ascendant". In addition, in light of the fact that where a person who has acquired one unit of non-business passenger car, it does not fall under the proviso of Article 18-5 (1).

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 112(5) and 132-2(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997); Articles 84-5(1)1 and 99-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489 of Oct. 1, 1997)

Plaintiff, Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant, Appellant

The head of Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu49147 delivered on April 9, 1998

Text

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

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Articles 12(5) and 132-2(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406, Aug. 30, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provide that acquisition tax and registration tax shall be imposed if a non-business passenger house is acquired in excess of one by one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Articles 84-5(1) and 99-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15489, Oct. 1, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the “Enforcement Decree”) provide that if a lineal descendant acquires more than one by one household and its family members registered in the resident registration card of each household, it shall be deemed that one household acquires more than the farmland income tax than the original one by one household, and it shall be deemed that the lineal descendant or his lineal descendant is not less than 3 years old since it does not belong to the same household, and it shall be deemed that it does not belong to the same household or one household under the proviso of the Local Tax Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's acquisition of one car per household under Article 112 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is not a case where the non-party, the male head of the same household, who is registered as a family member on the resident registration card of the same household, newly purchased a car on February 18, 1997 and completed registration procedures in his name. The non-party, at the time of the plaintiff's acquisition of the car as above, has already been married as a person with wage and salary income under the Income Tax Act, and the non-party, at the time of the plaintiff's acquisition of the car as above, has already been married. The decision of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law as to the scope of one car per household, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)

arrow