The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. Article 111(5) and the main sentence of Article 82-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sep. 20, 2010) by delegation under Article 111(5) and (8) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “The acquisition price under Article 111(5)1 through 4 of the Act shall be the total sum of the direct costs paid or payable to the other party or a third party to acquire the pertinent goods as of the time of acquisition and any of the following indirect costs.” Article 111(5)1 provides that “The interest on loans appropriated for construction capital or financial costs similar thereto shall be the total sum of indirect costs:

As such, it is based on the fact that the former Local Tax Act provides that interest on loans appropriated for construction funds shall be included in the tax base of acquisition tax.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du17179 Decided April 29, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du17179, Apr. 29, 2010). Thus, in the case of a loan directly borrowed for the purpose of acquiring a certain asset through construction, the interest paid shall be included in the tax base of acquisition tax, but the interest paid on the loan borrowed for other purposes shall be deemed as indirectly required for the acquisition of the object of taxation, and may be deemed as substantially invested in the tax base of acquisition tax, barring special

In addition, Taxation Summary

The burden of proof on the existence of facts and the tax base is against the tax authorities, and it has been borrowed for other purposes.