Lee Young-young (Attorney Kim Il-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yangsan Gun (Attorney Kang-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

December 6, 1983

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu360 Delivered on March 22, 1983

1. The imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 2,736,00 against the Plaintiff on August 4, 1981 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The original claim is the same as the disposition, and the preliminary purpose of the claim is to seek nullification of the above taxation disposition.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4 (the evidence No. 1-4 is the same as Gap evidence No. 7) without dispute over each establishment, the defendant purchased 30,000 won out of 114,236,00 won out of 114,000 won in 114,00,000 and imposed acquisition tax on the plaintiff (the defendant issued a tax payment notice with the person other than the plaintiff's person liable for duty payment, and the plaintiff's person other than the plaintiff's 1-2,00,000 won cannot be deemed to have been written on Aug. 4, 1981. 22, 1979.

The plaintiff's representative is 14,82 square meters near the above 100,000 won of the above 200,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 200,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 40,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 40,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the 19,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the 10,000,0000 won of the above 1.

Since the plaintiff et al. did not exist at the time of the purchase of the above forest land, this taxation is just and reasonable, even if the plaintiff et al. did not have domestic duties, and this taxation is asserted to be legitimate and reasonable, so the plaintiff et al., the representative of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been acquired on the outstanding payment date of the contract for the acquisition by succession under Article 73 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. According to the above facts of recognition, the above Council was not established at the time of the purchase of forest land, but the remaining amount was not paid before December 22, 1979, and the above Council was established on November 1, 1979, since the plaintiff et al. had no such form of organization. Further, since the association without legal personality under Article 13 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, foundation and other national taxes of the non-legal entity must be imposed on the representative or the manager of the non-legal entity, the defendant's assertion that the above provision is not related to the organization's tax liability of the non-legal entity.

Therefore, since the defendant imposed acquisition tax on the premise that the plaintiff et al. acquired the above forest land, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 27, 1983

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)