Whether the registration of division of common property in a large city is subject to heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act within five years after its establishment (negative)

Articles 131(1) (see current Article 28(1) and 138(1)3 (see current Article 28(2)) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 102(2) (see current Article 45) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010)

So-called So-called Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Geumsung, Attorneys Lee Ho-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu8128 decided September 2, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the latter part of Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sep. 20, 2010) by delegation from the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010) provide that where a corporation established in a large city registers all real estate within five years after its establishment, the registration tax rate shall be 300/100 of the relevant tax rate prescribed in Article 131 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Act”). Article 131(1) of the Act provides that the registration tax rate shall be 8/1,00 through 10/100 of the value of the real estate and the following joint ownership rate shall be 30/100 of the value of the real estate:

The main legislative intent of the Act and subordinate statutes of this case is to prevent population concentration in a large city by imposing registration tax on real estate registration when a corporation newly acquires real estate in a large city within a short period after its establishment. The division of real estate in a large city is merely a change in the form of ownership by concentrating the shares distributed to the specific part of the common real estate, and thus it is difficult to deem that there is a new effect of population concentration due to the acquisition of real estate. Article 131(1) of the Act provides for a special low-level tax rate separately from registration by general acquisition of ownership. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that registration following the division of real estate in a large city by a corporation in a large city within five years after its establishment is not subject to registration tax under the Act and subordinate statutes of this case.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court determined as follows: ① on April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc. on December 20, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 1,142.42/2, out of 2,463 square meters of forest land (number 2 omitted) 2,463 square meters before the subdivision, and completed the registration of transfer of shares on January 17, 2008; ② thereafter, the Plaintiff and other co-owners of the said land were divided into two parts according to the court’s settlement recommendation and the registration tax under the statutes of the Republic of Korea (number 2 omitted) 1,142 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant land”) 1,142 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant co-ownership registration tax”) and the portion of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff on June 4, 2009, which was not likely to be owned by the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant co-ownership and the instant land owned owned owned by 13 is not subject to be registered.

In light of the above provisions and legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidity of the statute and disposition of this

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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)