Dongyang Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Dongdaemun-gu (Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 28, 1982

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition imposing registration tax on the plaintiff on December 30, 1980 KRW 10,828,193, and the defense tax of KRW 2,165,638 (the second half of the year of 80), shall be revoked with respect to the registration of ownership preservation on August 6, 1980 of the above ground building 3, 463-19, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, for the plaintiff on December 30, 1980. The defendant's disposition imposing registration tax on the plaintiff is revoked

The plaintiff constructed a building of 1,295.69 square meters on the 3rd and 463th 19th 19th 1,29 of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the plaintiff owned and paid registration tax according to the tax rate under Article 131 of the Local Tax Act in order to preserve ownership of the building on August 6, 1980. The defendant had no dispute over the above registration amount between the plaintiff and the party concerned, since the plaintiff constructed a branch office in Seoul and acquired the above building within 5 years from April 7, 1978, and pay five times the tax amount equivalent to 5 times the amount of the tax under Article 131 of the Local Tax Act as a real estate registration after the establishment of a branch office in the large city under Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, as stated in the purport of Article 130 of the Local Tax Act on December 30, 1980.

The plaintiff corporation is a non-party 1 corporation and registered its branch office in 171 Dong-dong on April 7, 1978, as the non-party 1 corporation and its 3-dong 6-dong 1 corporation's 7-dong 6-dong 1 corporation's 7-dong 6-dong 1 corporation's 7-dong 6-dong 1 corporation's 3-dong 17-dong 6 corporation's 3-dong 6-dong 4 corporation's 1-dong 6-dong 6 corporation's 1-dong 3-dong 6 corporation's 7-dong 1-dong 6 corporation's 7-dong 1-dong 6 corporation's 3-dong 7-dong 6 corporation's 1-dong 6 corporation's 1-dong 3-dong 6 corporation's 1-dong 6 corporation's 1-dong 3-party 6 corporation's 3-party 2's 6-party 1-dong 3 corporation's 3 corporation's 1-

However, according to Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, real estate registration is subject to heavy taxation 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 and the transfer of a branch office or a branch office in a large city. According to Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, real estate registration refers to registration acquired before the establishment and transfer of a juristic person or a branch office in order to use it directly for its business, and real estate registration refers to registration of real estate acquisition within five years after the establishment and transfer of a juristic person or a branch office in a large city. As seen above, since the Plaintiff used this building as a juristic person for real estate rental business and part of this building for the management of this building as its branch office, the preservation registration of the Plaintiff juristic person's building in this case shall not be subject to heavy taxation within five years after the establishment and transfer of its main office or a branch office in a large city (Article 102 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act).

Therefore, the defendant's claim for the cancellation of this taxation disposition on the ground that the preservation registration of this building was not registered according to the establishment of the office of the plaintiff company, but it was not registered within five years after the establishment of the branch office, is without merit. Therefore, the lawsuit cost is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff who lost

February 18, 1982

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)