[1] In a case where, after a facility leasing contract for the mid-term, a user of the facilities joins the facilities as an incorporated company with the consent of the facilities leasing company, the owner of the above mid-term external ownership

[2] Criteria for interpreting laws and regulations on requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that in case where the mid-term equipment leased was registered in the name of a branch company in accordance with a branch entry contract by deeming that the provisions of Article 110 of the former Local Tax Act exclusively lists the non-taxation object of acquisition tax, it cannot be included in the formal acquisition of ownership as stipulated in the above provision

[1] In case where a company acquires the contractual status of a user of a facility under a contract for the lease of a facility, unless there is a reason to view that the company took over the contractual status of the user of the facility, such as changing the name of the user of the facility under the contract for the lease of the facility from the location-based company to the location-based company, and the external owner of the facility is the location-based company, after concluding the contract for the lease of the facility for the mid-term period, if the user of the facility moved into the location-based company with the consent of the facility leasing company.

[2] The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. As such, the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to the taxpayers without any justifiable reason results in a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that in case where the second half of the facilities leased was registered in the name of a company incorporated under a branch entry contract, since the provisions of Article 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) were limited to the non-taxable list of the acquisition tax, the acquisition tax cannot be included in the formal acquisition of ownership under the above provision

[1] Article 13-2 (1) of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Act No. 5374 of Aug. 28, 1997) (see current Article 33 (1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act), Article 3 (1) of the former Medium-Term Management Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) (Article 3 (1) of the current Construction Machinery Management Act) / [2] Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [3] Article 10 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2677 delivered on May 26, 198 (Gong1987, 107) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu17273 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1286) 95Da3425 delivered on November 10, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 3913) 200Da20069 delivered on October 13, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2321 delivered on December 26, 200), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2057 delivered on July 26, 200 (Gong2074, 200Ha, 2329)

Korean Lease Credit Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanlul, Attorneys Jeong Young-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1 (Attorneys Lee Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2004Na774 Delivered on February 17, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

In the land entry contract, it is the opinion established by the party members to view that the used-in or used-in-house is the ownership of the land company externally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu351, Oct. 8, 1985; 86Meu2677, May 26, 1987; 88Meu17273, Jul. 25, 1989; 95Da34255, Nov. 10, 1995; 200Da20069, Oct. 13, 200; 200Da20069, etc.). If, after entering into the land lease contract for the mid-term, a user of the leased-in-house enters the land under the consent of the land lease company with the consent of the land owner, the land owner is no other reason to view that the land owner is the land owner under the general name of the land lease company.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the owner at the time of the Defendants’ taxation disposition and seizure disposition as to the instant astronomical air leased by the Central Lease Finance Co., Ltd. is a branch company, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff is inappropriate to be invoked in this case as it relates to a case where a vehicle is registered under the name of a facility lessee without an access contract.

2. As to the second ground for appeal

The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption, and thus extensively or analogically interpreting the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to the taxpayer without any justifiable reason is contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is the basic ideology of

In the same purport, the court below determined that Article 110 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) as at the time when the acquisition tax of this case was imposed on the Grand Heavy Co., Ltd. is limited to the non-taxation object of acquisition tax, and furthermore, it is just to reject the plaintiff's assertion that the Tae Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. acquired ownership of the instant astronomical air under the land entry contract on the premise that it is a simple exceptional provision, but it can be included in the formal acquisition of ownership as stipulated in the above provision, and it cannot be said that there is any error of misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)