[1] The meaning of "real estate registration of a single body" subject to heavy registration tax under Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and whether the registration of real estate acquired in relation to other branches, etc. is included (negative)

[2] The standard of applicable tax rate for the “real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation or a branch office, etc.” under the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act

[3] Whether Article 150-2 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, which is an additional tax clause of registration tax, violates the principle of no taxation without law or equality (negative)

[1] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a juristic person or a branch in a large city shall be deemed one of the subject of heavy registration tax. Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that "real estate registration after its establishment, establishment, or transfer means all the real estate registration that is acquired by a juristic person or a branch within five years after its establishment, establishment, or transfer, for non-business or non-business purpose." Since the registration tax is related to the juristic person (the head office) or its branch office, it shall not be deemed that the real estate is acquired within five years after its establishment, establishment, or transfer, the pertinent real estate shall not be included in the pertinent real estate.

[2] In the case of the "real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation or a branch, etc." under the latter part of Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), the requirements for heavy registration tax at the time of the registration of the real estate are met, and thus, the liability for heavy registration tax is established. Accordingly, the heavy tax rate shall be governed by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes in force at the

[3] Of Article 151 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), which is an additional tax provision for registration tax, the part concerning Article 150-2 (1) of the same Act, shall not be deemed to be in violation of the principle of no taxation without law or to be in violation of the principle of equality.

[1] Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 200) / [2] Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998) / [3] Articles 150-2(1) and 151 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998); Articles 11(1), 37(2), and 59 of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu556 delivered on January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 361), 92Nu1561, 15628 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2324), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15796 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1985), Supreme Court Decision 9Du9253 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3524), Supreme Court Decision 9Du1618 delivered on April 10, 201 (Gong201Sang, 1151) / [3] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201Hun-Ga3131 delivered on June 21, 2005

New Bank of Korea (Attorney Cho Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu13507 delivered on June 20, 2003

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant’s ground of appeal

Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter "the Act") provides that real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a juristic person or a branch in a large city shall be subject to heavy registration tax. Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17052 of Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree") provides that "real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer" in Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act refers to any real estate registration which is non-business, non-business, or non-business, acquired within five years after establishment, establishment, transfer, and transfer of a juristic person or a branch office, etc.

In the same purport, the court below held that the registration of the land of this case is limited to the part related to the daily origin point out of the registration of the land of this case, since the registration of the land of this case was acquired by the plaintiff corporation within five years after the establishment of the branch, which is subject to heavy taxation, and is acquired by the plaintiff corporation (the head office), five years after the establishment of the corporation, and the land of this case was acquired in relation to both the plaintiff corporation (the head office) and the Japanese branch, and thus, the subject of heavy taxation is limited to the part related to the Japanese origin point out of the registration of the land of this case. Such decision of the court below is correct, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legislative purport and legal principles of Article 138 (1) 3 of the Act, Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree, or contrary to the interpretation of the text of Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree

2. On the second ground for appeal by the plaintiff

In the case of “real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation or a branch, etc.” under the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the Act, the requirements for heavy registration tax at the time of the real estate registration are met, and thus, liability for registration tax by heavy tax rate is established. Therefore, the heavy tax rate shall also be governed by the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration of the land of this case is five times the standard tax rate, which is the heavy tax rate under Article 138 (1) of the Act, which was enforced as of August 10, 1996, since the requirements for heavy registration tax have already been met on August 10, 1996, the registration of the land of this case was completed, and there is no error in the application of the date of acquisition of the land of this case and the tax rate as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, in light of the records, the court below did not err in the violation of the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff in judging whether the registration tax of this case constitutes heavy registration tax.

3. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 3

In general, in tax law relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the tax authority's acts, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the object of trust to the taxpayer; the taxpayer has no reason to be attributable to the taxpayer when the taxpayer trusted that the tax authority's opinion list is justifiable; the taxpayer has trusted his opinion list; and the tax authority has made a disposition contrary to the opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest. (See Supreme Court Decisions 9Du1861, Mar. 29, 2002; 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.). Examining the above legal principles and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below in light of the records, the evidence submitted by the court below alone is not only a public opinion that the registration number of the land of this case does not fall under the subject of the registration tax of this case, but it is difficult to view that it is not a reason for the plaintiff to believe that it is not in violation of the principle of trust protection.

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed under the conditions prescribed by individual tax law in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, where a taxpayer violates a duty to report and pay taxes without justifiable grounds, and where there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause a failure to perform his/her duty to pay taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du2379, Mar. 9, 199; 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003). In light of the above legal principles and records, and the reasons for hearing the explanation that the transfer registration of this case from the above fixed number does not constitute an excessive subject of registration taxes, and the following circumstances, even if the Plaintiff believed that the above fixed number was justifiable and did not perform his/her duty to report and pay taxes, it cannot be said that there are justifiable grounds for not to cause a failure to neglect his/her duty to pay taxes to the Plaintiff.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the justifiable ground for appeal.

4. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 4

Of Article 151 of the Act, which is an additional provision of the registration tax, Article 150-2 (1) of the Act applicable to this case, it cannot be deemed that the part concerning Article 150-2 (1) of the Act, which is applied to this case, is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition and is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law, or is contrary to the principle of no taxation without law (see Constitutional Court Order 2004HunGa31, Dec. 22, 2005). The decision of

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)