[1] In the case of gratuitous acquisition without actual acquisition, whether the price of the object of taxation recorded in the corporate account book can be considered as the tax base such as acquisition tax (negative)

[2] The case holding that where a company receives real estate from a shareholder for the purpose of repaying financial debts and receives an exemption from acquisition tax and registration tax, but thereafter exempted acquisition tax and registration tax are collected additionally, the tax base shall be calculated based on the statutory standard price, not on the corporate book value

[1] Article 111(1) or Article 130(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6260 of Feb. 3, 200) refers to the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of an object of taxation, such as real estate, in principle, at the time of acquisition, as a tax base for acquisition tax or registration tax, and Article 130(2) refers to the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of the object of taxation, such as real estate. If there is no return, etc. or the reported value is short of the current base value, the current base value shall be interpreted as the tax base. In the case of gratuitous acquisition with no actual acquisition, the tax base shall be calculated according to the current base value, and the price of the object of taxation entered in the corporate book shall not be the actual acquisition value.

[2] The case holding that where a company receives real estate from a shareholder for the purpose of repaying financial debts and is exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, but thereafter exempted acquisition tax and registration tax are collected additionally, the tax base shall be calculated based on the statutory standard price, not the corporate book value

[1] Articles 111, 120, 130, and 150-2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6260 of Feb. 3, 200) / [2] Articles 111, 120, 130, and 150-2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6260 of Feb. 3, 200), Article 40-7 (1) 8 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 5561 of Sep. 16, 1998) (see current Article 41 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act) Article 114(1)7 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (see current Article 119(1)8 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu953 delivered on January 12, 1988 (Gong1988, 411) Supreme Court Decision 98Du19193 delivered on October 13, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2357)

Sungwon Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Ansan-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu10457 delivered on December 4, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 111(1) or 130(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6260 of Feb. 3, 200) refers to, in principle, the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of an object of taxation, such as real estate, as at the time of acquisition, as the tax base of acquisition tax or registration tax, and Article 111(2) refers to the actual acquisition value required for the acquisition of the object of taxation, such as real estate, as at the time of acquisition, by the acquisitor or registrant. If there is no report or the reported value is below the standard market value (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu953, Jan. 12, 198; 87Nu953, Jan. 12, 198; 200Du193, Oct. 13, 200).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that since the plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax pursuant to Articles 40-7, 113(1)8, and 114(1)7 of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (amended by Act No. 5561 of Sep. 16, 1998), since the plaintiff was donated the land and its above ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case") from the non-party who is the shareholder for the purpose of repaying financial debts on June 29, 1998, for the purpose of repaying financial debts, the amount of acquisition tax and registration tax should be collected on May 10, 200, which was the time limit for the plaintiff to transfer real estate pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the amount of the real estate of this case, which was recorded in the application form for local tax reduction and exemption, should not be considered as the price of the real estate of this case, and the tax base of the acquisition tax and registration tax should be determined as unlawful.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the tax base and payment of acquisition tax and registration tax under the Local Tax Act, or misunderstanding of facts, as

In addition, as pointed out in the ground of appeal, even if the plaintiff is subject to the reduction of acquisition tax and registration tax on the real estate in this case and calculated the acquisition tax and registration tax which are reduced or exempted on the basis of higher price than the standard market price, and accordingly returned and paid special rural development tax, the standard market price cannot be used as the tax base in the disposition in this case where the acquisition tax and registration tax which differs from the tax items, taxation requirements, etc. are collected. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

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 on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)