[1] In the case of onerous succession acquisition without the actual requirements for the acquisition of ownership or the form of transfer of ownership, whether the tax liability for acquisition tax can be deemed to have been established upon the arrival of the remainder payment date under Article 73(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (negative)

[2] The legal nature of a tax notice issued after the tax base and amount of acquisition tax were reported

[1] Article 29 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax shall be established when it acquires an object of taxation at the time of acquisition of ownership. The acquisition of object of taxation shall include all cases of acquisition by transfer of ownership regardless of whether it actually acquires ownership, and acquisition tax is an act tax imposed by transfer of ownership as a taxable object, regardless of whether it is actually complete acquisition, regardless of whether it is registered or recorded, and Article 105 (2) of the Local Tax Act provides that acquisition shall be deemed to have been established when it is actually acquired even if it does not perform registration under the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, in acquiring real estate. The above provision provides that acquisition does not meet the formal requirements for acquisition of ownership, such as registration, but does not meet the substantive requirements for acquisition of ownership, so long as acquisition by transfer of ownership does not meet the substantive requirements for acquisition by transfer of ownership such as the payment of price or the form of transfer of ownership, even if the acquisition tax is established under Article 105 (1) 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17329, Dec. 29, 20000).

[2] If a taxpayer filed a return on the tax base and amount of tax for acquisition tax, which is a tax return method, the tax liability becomes final and conclusive. Thus, even if a tax payment notice was issued later, it is merely a collection disposition ordering the performance of the tax liability for acquisition tax already finalized.

[1] Articles 29(1)1 and 105(2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 73(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052, Dec. 29, 2000) / [2] Articles 111(2) and 120 of the Local Tax Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu910 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1178) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu919 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198, 922), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu377 delivered on October 11, 198 (Gong198, 1412), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7906 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991Ha, 1699) 20Nu16843 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993, 297Du97995 delivered on May 14, 1995) 97Du979995 delivered on May 16, 196 (Gong1979 delivered on September 29, 295)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Ho-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu8874 delivered on May 9, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

Article 29(1)1 of the Local Tax Act provides that an object of taxation of acquisition tax shall be established when it acquires an object of taxation. The acquisition of an object of taxation shall include not only all cases of acquisition by transfer of ownership regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires ownership of the substance completely (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu919, Apr. 25, 198) but also cases of acquisition tax is imposed by transfer of ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu919, Apr. 25, 198). Tax claims against an object of taxation occur regardless of whether it is registered or not (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu377, Oct. 11, 198) because Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been actually acquired even if it fails to perform registration, etc. under the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Civil Act, and Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax shall be deemed to have been actually acquired if it does not meet the requirements of ownership payment or actual acquisition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of acquisition tax liability.

2. The second ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the report of acquisition tax of this case filed by Nonparty 2, who is the cause of the affairs of the certified judicial scrivener 1, as the plaintiff, was not delegated by the plaintiff and was ratified later by the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the act of reporting agent as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

3. Ground of appeal No. 3

If a taxpayer filed a tax base and tax amount with respect to acquisition tax, which is a tax by tax return method, the tax liability becomes final and conclusive. Thus, even if a tax payment notice was issued later, it is nothing more than the collection disposition ordering the performance of the tax liability for acquisition tax (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu910 delivered on February 3, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City tax office, the tax authority, deemed that the plaintiff's tax payer of the acquisition tax of this case was confirmed by the non-party 2's report, and issued the tax notice to collect this case, which only has the nature of the collection disposition, and that the non

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete hearing or lack of right to explanation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)