(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.1.9.선고 2014나2015819 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,938,219,610 and KRW 535,342,09 from November 14, 2008, KRW 567,952,870 from November 16, 2009, KRW 939,985,560 from November 15, 201, KRW 940, KRW 940,180 from November 14, 2011, KRW 954,759,010 from November 14, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From May 1989, the Plaintiff is operating a middle golf club (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf club”) in the first place of 22 lots of land, 917,764m (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Special Self-Governing Province”). The Plaintiff registered the instant golf club as a membership golf course pursuant to the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, which was at the time of opening the instant golf club, as a membership golf course, but actually operates it as a public golf course without recruiting its members.

B. From 2008 to 2012, the Defendant imposed property tax and local education tax on the Plaintiff from 2008 to 2012 with respect to the Plaintiff’s real estate in Jeju-do including the instant land (hereinafter “instant taxation”), and the Plaintiff paid all of them. However, among the instant taxation, the Defendant deemed the instant land as the subject of separate taxation and calculated the amount of property tax and local education tax by deeming it as the subject of separate taxation

A person shall be appointed.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 23, Gap evidence 2, 5 through 8-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Property tax and local education tax imposed in proportion thereto ought to be imposed according to the current status regardless of the registration entered on the public register according to the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of imposing the current status. However, at the time of the instant taxation, the instant golf course was actually operated as a public golf course, not a membership golf course, and thus, the instant land, which is the site of the instant golf course, is not subject to separate taxation with a higher tax rate of 4%, but rather subject to separate taxation with a lower tax rate of 0.

The above principle of imposition of substance over form and current status is already established by statutes and precedents. The Plaintiff’s operation of a public golf course, unlike the registration, as a public golf course, was based on the Defendant’s policy request, and the Defendant was aware of the actual status of the instant golf course at the time of the instant tax disposition.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on the ground that the instant golf course was registered as a membership golf course, deemed the instant land as an object of separate taxation, and calculated the property tax and local education tax. Of the instant taxation, the portion concerning the instant land is a disposition of separate taxation, which is a legal and apparent land subject to separate taxation, and is therefore null and void.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the amount of unjust enrichment calculated as follows, the sum of KRW 3,938,219,610, and the interest and delay damages thereon, which are calculated as follows, by deeming the pertinent land as subject to separate aggregate taxation, and deeming the pertinent property tax and local education tax to be subject to separate aggregate taxation.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) Article 182(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "land for golf course under Article 112(2) (the latter part of Article 112(2) (excluding the latter part of Article 112(2)) shall be subject to separate taxation among the land owned by the person liable to pay tax as of the date of taxation as of the date of general aggregate taxation, separate aggregate taxation, and separate taxation." Article 182(1) of the same Act provides that "gol course" shall be subject to separate registration among real estate for membership golf course under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter referred to as "sports facilities Act"). Article 112(2)2 of the same Act provides that "gol course" shall apply not only to a case where a sports facility business is registered under the provisions of the Sports Facilities Act, but also to a case where it is actually used as a golf course without registration.

Meanwhile, Article 182 (1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act provides that "land prescribed by Presidential Decree as being subject to separate aggregate taxation held by a taxpayer as of the tax base date shall be subject to separate aggregate taxation." Article 131-2 (3) 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "land actually used for sports facilities (excluding land for sports facilities in land for membership golf course under the Sports Facilities Act) as land for sports facilities under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act, which is used for a business of a person who has registered his/her business pursuant to Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, shall be subject to separate aggregate taxation."

In full view of the legislative intent of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the former Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act, language and text, contents of the provisions, and the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of imposition of status, land for a membership golf course subject to the property tax subject to the property tax separate taxation shall be the land actually being used as a membership golf course, barring special circumstances. In the event that a sports facility business is registered as a membership golf course pursuant to the Sports Facilities Act, if it is actually operated only as a public golf course, the land shall not be subject to the property tax separate taxation under Articles 182(1)3 (c) and 112(2)2 of the former Local Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1904, Feb. 15, 2013).

2) In order for a defective administrative disposition to be void as a matter of course, it must be obvious that the defect is significant in violation of the important part of the law, and it must be objectively objectively examined the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law as well as rational consideration on the specificity of the specific case itself in order to determine whether the defect is significant and obvious. In a case where an administrative disposition was taken by applying the provisions of a law to certain legal relations or factual relations, it is clearly stated that the legal principles that the provisions of the law cannot be applied to certain legal relations or factual relations, and thus, if an administrative disposition was rendered by the Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs, even though there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, it is obvious that the defect is significant and obvious. However, if there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the law as to such legal relations or factual relations because the legal principles are not clearly revealed, it cannot be said that even if the administrative disposition was taken by erroneous interpretation, it is merely erroneous in the fact of the disposition requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da68485, Oct.

In light of the above facts and relevant legal principles, since the instant golf course was operated only as a public golf course, the instant land is deemed to be subject to separate taxation. The Defendant deemed the instant land as subject to separate taxation, and imposed the instant taxation by applying a higher tax rate. Therefore, the instant taxation disposition is deemed to have a significant defect in violation of the relevant laws and regulations.

그러나 원고가 이 사건 과세처분에 대한 별도의 취소 없이, 곧바로 민사소송절차를 통하여 피고에게 이 사건 과세처분에 따라 납부한 금원을 부당이득으로 청구하려면 이 사건 과세처분의 위 하자가 중대할 뿐만 아니라 명백하여 이 사건 과세처분이 당연히 무효인 사유에 해당하여야 한다. 그런데 을 제1호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인징되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 1① 재산세 분리과세대상 토지에 관하여, 구 지방세법 제182조 제1항 제3호 다목은 과세기준일 현재 납세의무자가 소유하고 있는 토지 중 '제112조 제2항의 규정에 의한 골프장'을 분리과세대상으로 규정하고 있고, 제112조 제2항 제2호는 '골프장 : 체육시설법의 규정에 의한 회원제골프 장용 부동산 중 구분등록의 내상이 되는 토지'라고 규정하고 있으며, 구 지방세법 시행령 제131조의2 제3항 제10호가 별도합산과세 하여야 할 토지를 정하면서 체육시설법에 따른 회원제골프장용 토지 내의 운동시설용 토지를 제외하고 있어 그 문언의 표현만으로는 회원제골프장으로 등록되어 있으나 실제로는 대중골프장으로만 운영되고 있는 골프장용 토지가 분리과세대상 토지에 해당하지 않는다고 단정하기 어렵고, 오히려 위 각 규정의 문언에 따르면 '체육시설법의 규정에 의하여 회원제골프장으로 등록된 골프장용 토지'는 분리과세대상 토지라고 해석될 여지도 있는 점(원고가 들고 있는 대법원 1997. 4. 22. 선고 96누11129 판결은 골프장업자가 회원제골프장과 일반골프장을 동시에 경영한 사례에 관한 것으로서 이 사건에 바로 적용될 수 있는 선례라고 하기 어렵다), ② 실제로 이 사건 과세처분과 동일하게 회원제골프장으로 등록되어 있지만 실제로는 대중골프장으로 운영한 골프장 부지를 재산세 분리과세대상이라고 보아 이루어진 과세처분의 적법성이 다투어진 위 대법원 2012두11904 재산세등부과처분취소 사건에서, 1, 2심 법원은 "회원제골프장의 구분등록을 마친 뒤에는 시·도지사, 시장·군수 또는 구청장에게 회원모집계획서를 작성·제출하여 언제든 회원을 모집할 수 있고, 회원제골프장으로 등록을 한 뒤에 언제든 대중골프장으로 변경등록이 가능한 반면, 대중골프장업으로 승인을 받은 사업계획이나 동복한 시설의 전부 또는 일부를 회원제골 프장업의 사업계획이나 시설로 전환할 수 없으므로, 회원제골프장으로 등록된 토지는 그 자체로 경제적인 가치를 보유하고 있다. 실질과세원칙 및 현황부과원칙은 어디까지나 대상이 법에 규정된 과세대상인지 여부를 판단함에 있어 그 현황을 고려해야 한다는 의미이지, 과세대상으로 규정된 문언을 넘어서서 현황에 따라 법에 규정된 과세대상을 확대 또는 축소할 수 있다는 의미는 아닌바, 이 사건 토지가 회원제골프장으로 등록된 이상, 이 사건 토지의 현황은 구 지방세법이 규정한 '체육시설법의 규정에 의한 회원제골프장용 부동산 중 구분뚱록의 대상이 되는 토지'라고 보아야 한다. 또한 구 지방세법이 단순하게 '회원제골프장으로 사용되는 토지'를 분리과세대상으로 규정하는 데 그치지 않고, 체육시설법에 따른 등록 여부를 그 기준으로 명시한 것은 과세대상을 명확히 하고자 함에 그 목적이 있다"라는 이유로 위 대법원 판결과 달리 과세처분을 적법하다고 판단하기도 하였는바, 회원제골프장으로 등록되어 있지만 실제로는 대중골프장으로 운영된 골프장 부지에 대한 관계 법령의 재산세 과세데상 구분에 관하여 그 해석에 다툼의 여지가 있었던 점, 3 원고는 이 사건 과세처분 이전에 이미 실질과세의 원칙 및 현황부과의 원칙에 관한 법리가 확립되어 있었고, 구 지방세법 시행령 제143조 등에 위 원칙들이 규정되어 있었던 사정을 들어 회원제골프장으로 등록되어 있으나 대중골프장으로 이용되고 있는 경우 그 골프장용 토지에 관하여 재산세를 부과함에 있어 실질에 따라 중과세 대상으로 분류하여서는 안 된다는 점이 명백하다는 취지로 주장하나, 구 지방세법 제182조 제1항 제3호 다목, 제112조 제2항 제2호가 규정하고 있는 재산세 분리과세대상이 되는 회원제골프장용 토지를 해석함에 있어 실질과세의 원칙 및 현황부과의 원칙과 함께 관련 법령 규정들의 입법취지, 문언 표현과 규정 내용 등을 종합하여 이를 해석하여야 하디로, 원고가 주장하는 사정만으로 위 규정 내용의 해석에 다툼의 여지가 없었다고 보기 어려운 점, ④ 체육시설법에 따라 회원제골프장으로 등록하였으나 회원 모집을 하지 아니하고 골프장을 운영하는 경우 회원제골프장으로 중과할 것인가에 관하여 "당해 골프장이 관련법에 따라 회원제골프장용 부동산으로 구분등록 되어 있어 언제든지 회원을 모집하여 운영할 수 있는 경우라면, 현황상 중과 대상 회원제 골프장으로서 실체를 구비하고 있는 것으로 보아 중과 대상 골프장에 해당한다"라는 내용의 행정자치부 유권해석(지방세운영과-625. 2011. 6. 10.)이 있었던 점, ⑤ 피고는 1989. 5. 원고가 이 사건 골프장을 개장한 이래 계속하여 이 사건 토지를 분리과세대상으로 보고 과세처분을 하여 왔는데, 원고는 위 대법원 2013. 2. 15. 선고 2012두11904 판결이 나오기 전에는 이에 관하여 다툰 사실이 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 이 사건 과세처분에 존재하는 하자가 명백하다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.