Whether it is subject to heavy registration tax as provided in Article 138 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act for a mutual savings and finance company Gap to acquire the land and buildings owned by Eul and to establish a branch office in its office and complete a registration of ownership transfer of such land and building (negative)

If Gap mutual savings and finance company located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City takes over Eul's office land and building located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City by acquiring all rights and obligations, such as assets and liabilities of Eul mutual savings and finance company, and on the other hand, it is necessary to continue transactions with the previous customers who have transacted with Eul, and if Gap's office was established in the previous office office of Eul and made a registration of transfer of ownership following the acquisition of the above land and building, the establishment of the above office is not a new office that had not been previously established, but a new office is not a new office, and only a new office that had already been located in the previous office is maintained and maintained as it is, and it does not conflict with the legislative purpose of the heavy registration tax regulation, such as the concentration of large city population, and therefore, the above case does not constitute real estate registration after the establishment of the branch office in the large city as provided in Article 138 (1) 3

Article 138 of the Local Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Mutual Savings Bank

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The defendant's disposition imposing registration tax of KRW 295,254,490 against the plaintiff on January 16, 198 and its defense tax of KRW 59,050,890 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiff's acquisition of the above real estate by means of the following 0: Gap's capital increase by 1, 15's 2, 3, 10's 10's 5's 70's 10's 80's 1's 60's 1's 70's 8's 1's 60's 9's 1's 60's 1's 7's 80's 9's 1's 6's 7's 8's 9's 6's 9's 7's 8's 9's 1's 60's 7's 10's 6's 7's 10's 9's 1'6''''''''''''''''''' 60''''''''' 7'''''6'''''''''''

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the above taxation disposition is legitimate, the above establishment of the above branch office is merely a maintenance of the existing branch office in order to continue to conduct the business of the non-party lender's previous business, and it does not constitute an object of taxation under the above provisions of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is illegal since the defendant's acquisition of real estate ownership other than farmland is not an object of taxation under Article 131 (1) 3 (2) of the Local Tax Act. The above provision of Article 38 (1) of the same Act provides that the tax rate of the above real estate shall not be five times the corresponding tax rate stipulated in Articles 131 and 137 of the Act because the plaintiff's new establishment of the branch office of the non-party lender's new business by changing the above provision of the Local Tax Act's establishment of the head office to the non-party lender's new business to the extent that the above provision of the Act's new establishment of the main office or branch office within the non-party's new business.

3. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s establishment of the above branch constitutes a subject of heavy registration tax, the Defendant’s registration tax of this case and defense detailed and disposition based on the premise that the establishment of the above branch constitutes a subject of heavy registration tax, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the lawsuit is decided as per Disposition at the Defendant’s

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)