Whether the registration of the acquisition of land for apartment construction site in the large city area of the corporation is subject to heavy taxation of the registration of the corporation in the large city area under Article 138 of the Local Tax Act.

Since it is clear that the registration of acquisition of land for apartment construction site in the large city area of a corporation does not correspond to the heavy taxation object of the registration of corporation in the large city area under Article 138 of the Local Tax Act, the registration tax of this case and the disposition of imposing the additional tax on defense tax on the premise that it falls under this case shall be imposed only when the defect is subject to taxation, and it is clear that

Article 138(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 131 of the Local Tax Act, Article 137 of the Local Tax Act

On June 26, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 79Nu73 delivered on June 26, 1979 (Supreme Court Decision 12202 delivered on June 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 27 ② ②71 delivered on June 7, 197, and a summary of summary of summary of decision (I), Article 138(1)244 of the Local Tax Act (I),

Development of Limited Partnership Companies

The head of Busan Dong-si

As of January 30, 1979, the Defendant’s disposition imposing registration tax of KRW 7,158,90 on the Plaintiff and the defense tax of KRW 1,431,780 on the Plaintiff is invalid.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The facts that the defendant imposed the registration tax in the order and the defense tax on the plaintiff as of January 30, 1979 are without dispute between the parties concerned. If Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, 1, 2- Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-2, and the witness's testimony shows the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff is a housing constructor registered at Busan City pursuant to Article 6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the plaintiff is registered at Busan City pursuant to Article 6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, on the two occasions of August 28, 1978 and September 24, 197, after deducting the registration tax in accordance with Article 691-1, 342, and the remaining amount of the registration tax in accordance with Article 97 of the Local Tax Act, and the remaining amount of the registration tax in accordance with Article 97 of the Local Tax Act shall be purchased as the site for the apartment to be sold to the plaintiff on September 28, 197.

Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff acquired the above real estate as a site for apartment for citizens to sell it. According to Article 138(1) of the Local Tax Act, the registration of juristic person in a large city area is more than five times the corresponding tax rate stipulated in Articles 131 and 137, and the registration of establishment of juristic person and the relocation of a branch office or a branch office in a large city; 1. Registration following the establishment of a juristic person in a large city and the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city; 2. In this case, the transfer shall be deemed the establishment of a juristic person.

Therefore, the disposition imposing additional tax on the plaintiff of this case by the defendant is an administrative disposition that renders it clear that its defect is obvious and significant invalid, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Maximum of Kim Young-il