Whether a contract for construction work is included in a contract and other instruments under Article 115 (5) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (negative)

The provisions of Articles 115(5) and 130(3) of the Local Tax Act, which provide for exceptions to the tax return and payment system, shall be strictly interpreted, and since the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation is not permitted, the contract and other certificates under Article 115(5)3 of the same Act shall include a sales contract and a report on acquisition, which contain a sales certificate under Article 82-2(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall not include a construction contract.

Articles 115(5) and 130(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 82-2 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1275 delivered on July 14, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant denied the plaintiff's voluntary declaration and payment of acquisition tax and defense tax, calculated the tax base by deducting the amount of tax paid by the plaintiff from the contract amount between the plaintiff and Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., and recognized the fact that the plaintiff imposed acquisition tax, registration tax, and defense tax, and Article 111, 130, and 120 of the former Local Tax Act, which the plaintiff had enforced at the time of the new construction of the building, shall be the tax base of all the expenses directly or indirectly needed to acquire the building at the time of acquisition, namely, the acquisition tax and registration tax, in principle, the value at the time of the new construction of the building at the time of acquisition, and the tax base of the acquisition can be determined by the report of the purchaser only if the reported price does not reach the standard amount of taxation, or if the tax office that received the above acquisition price is equal to or higher than the standard amount of taxation, it cannot be found that the acquisition price of the building at issue and the registration tax can not be added.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)