The meaning of Article 105 (10) of the former Local Tax Act "the real estate for the housing of an association acquired by the association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the association member."

Article 105 (10) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003) provides that “The real estate acquired by a cooperative member as an association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the association member.” The meaning of “the real estate acquired by the association member as an association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the association member or all of the association members when the association member acquired real estate for the association member’s purpose of acquiring the real estate for the association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the association member or all of the association members.” It conforms to the principle of strict interpretation of the principle of no taxation without law. The association’s special nature (i.e., the legal nature of the association is an unincorporated from a non-corporate association, independent of the association member, and its external and internal nature is very similar to the association under the Civil Act) is also consistent with the legislative purpose, existing practices, and basic principles of acquisition tax at the time of establishment, and it is reasonable to interpret it at the same time in terms of necessity in relation with the proviso of Article 110 subparag.

Article 105 (10) and the proviso to Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003)

연희동팰리스빌재건축정비사업조합 (소송대리인 변호사 이병돈)

The head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 11, 2006

1. Each disposition imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 10, 2005 by KRW 83,99,790, penalty tax of KRW 16,79,950, and special rural development tax of KRW 9,239,960 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of taxation; and

가. 원고는 서울 서대문구 연희동 6-8 외 33필지 토지 지상에 아파트 재건축을 목적으로 결성된 재건축조합으로서, 1999. 5. 25. 피고로부터 설립인가를 받았다(당시 원고의 명칭은 연희동팰리스빌재건축조합이었다). 원고는 2003. 7. 30. 도시 및 주거환경정비법에 따라 현재의 명칭으로 법인설립등기를 마쳤다.

B. From June 8, 200 to December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff was entrusted with a total of 6,504.94 square meters (hereinafter “instant old land”) among the members of the association as a new site for apartment construction, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership and the registration of trust in the name of the Plaintiff (including the case of re-trust due to the change of a partner), purchased a parcel of 1,214.06 square meters from a third party, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership and the registration of trust. The Plaintiff filed a return on the acquisition tax when purchasing the said parcel of 1,214.06 square meters.

C. Upon examining the procedure, members changed to some of the union members in the course of trust of their own shares to the Plaintiff. On June 8, 2000, Yong-Nam completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust held on May 30, 200 with respect to one’s own land out of the old land. On December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff sold the above land to Lee Young-young and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust held on December 29, 2004 with respect to the above land from the Plaintiff on the same day, and again completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust property held on December 29, 2004 to Lee Young-young, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale to the Plaintiff on the same day. On the same day, Lee Yong-Nam transferred the above land to the Plaintiff on the same day as the Plaintiff’s new members and transferred the ownership transfer registration to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s new members were transferred from his own land or shares.

D. On June 5, 200, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the alteration of the housing construction project that constructs an apartment building of 7,719 square meters (6,504.94 square meters + 1,214.06 square meters) on the ground of 7,441.02 square meters on the land from the Defendant on June 5, 200, with 29 households and 12 households and appurtenant welfare facilities (2,364.66 square meters in total floor area). On October 22, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the alteration that constructed an apartment building of 7,534.92 square meters on the land on the ground of 7,534.92 square meters on October 22, 2001, with 19 households and appurtenant welfare facilities (27,001.84 square meters in total floor area). Ultimately, as a result of the confirmation survey for the pre-use inspection, the entire land area was increased to 7,560 square meters on the site area as 975.75 square meters.

E. On February 19, 2005, the Plaintiff underwent a pre-use inspection on two apartment units, the entire 119 households and auxiliary welfare facilities (hereinafter “instant apartment units”) as completed by the Defendant.

F. Upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s report on completion of the project following the usage inspection of the instant apartment on February 22, 2005, the Defendant closed the cadastral record of the existing 34 lots of land in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the intellectual property laws and subordinate statutes in order to adjust the cadastral records according to the result of the confirmation survey on February 22, 2005, and completed cadastral adjustment by setting a new number of each of the lots of the instant apartment site on the same 7,748 square meters as 742 large 1,345.3 square meters, the same 742-1 large 742-1 large 742-6 square meters and 6215.6 square meters of the same site (hereinafter “the instant new land”). The Defendant completed the cadastral adjustment by setting a new lot number of 742-2 through 7 same 187.5 square meters

G. On June 2, 2005, the Plaintiff, along with the registration of ownership preservation, made a registration of ownership preservation on the apartment lots (including supplementary welfare facilities; hereinafter “general apartment lots”) sold to the general public among the instant apartment lots, and made a registration of ownership registration on the instant new apartment lots as to the instant new land.

H. Meanwhile, on October 22, 2001, the part that conflict with urban planning facilities (road) at the time of the approval for the change of the housing construction project plan on October 22, 2001 entered into an agreement on donation with the Defendant on January 20, 2005 regarding the land of 187.5 square meters, a road site, prior to the application for a pre-use inspection, and completed the registration for the transfer of ownership to the Defendant on June 2, 2005.

I. As the Defendant, as a result of a pre-use inspection, determined the area corresponding to the portion of the site of a general apartment among the instant new land as 5,214.05 square meters, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired 3,99.9 square meters excluding the area of 1,214.06 square meters of the land purchased from a third party on April 2, 2002, which is the date of the last trust registration (the date of the last trust registration of the first union members before the change of union members) on April 10, 202; and (b) on May 10, 2005, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff as the tax base of KRW 4,199,989,79,790 of the current base price based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2002, KRW 16,799,950 of the additional tax, special rural development tax (including additional tax), and imposed acquisition tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5 through Evidence No. 11 (including paper numbers), Evidence No. 2 through No. 8, Evidence No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s trust of the land of this case as the newly constructed apartment site from its members is merely a formal transfer of ownership, not a transfer of ownership, and thus is not subject to acquisition tax. Therefore, the instant disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Acquisition tax, regardless of whether the acquisitor has actually acquired ownership or not, is the object of taxation under tax-related Acts. Therefore, it is subject to acquisition tax because the Plaintiff actually acquired the previous land in trust from its members by completing the registration of ownership transfer. However, the part of the previous land which became final and conclusive as the land for its members at the time of the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case is prior to the amendment by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003, and the Defendant considered the acquisition on April 2, 2002, which is the date of the last registration of the trust, and thus this Act applies to the case where the acquisition was deemed to be the object of acquisition on April 2, 2002, which is the date of the last registration of the trust; hereinafter, the acquisition of the land for general sale is merely the acquisition of its own land and it does not meet the requirements of taxation, and the remaining acquisition of land for general sale is not subject to tax-free acquisition between the housing association and its members under the Local Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

(1) The taxable object of the instant acquisition tax, etc.

Acquisition tax is a taxable object regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the actual substance, regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the property in fact (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7896 Decided June 28, 2002). Since the acquisition tax is a type of distribution tax that takes advantage of the fact that the transfer of the property is the transfer of the original goods and imposes the tax-bearing capacity recognition and imposition of the tax-bearing capacity, the actual acquisition of the property itself is subject to taxation, regardless of whether the acquisitor acquires the ownership of the property in fact (Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7896 Decided June 28, 2002).

Meanwhile, Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that the acquisition of trust property between a housing association and its members under Article 44 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same) shall be subject to non-taxation as a trust under the Trust Act, which is a trust under the main sentence of Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act.

In this case, the object of taxation of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case is the old land, which is the trust property acquired by the Plaintiff from its members due to trust, as shown in the circumstances of the taxation disposition as seen earlier, and the taxable object is the act of acquiring the registration of transfer of ownership on the old land due to trust by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it seems that the act of the Plaintiff, one of the housing associations under Article 44 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, entrusted by its members and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the old land of this case due to each trust, falls under the proviso of Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act and thus becomes subject to acquisition tax (However, it is excluded from the discussion because it is not clear or unclear that the act of acquiring the trusted land of this case included the same part, which was re-trusted from July 1, 2003 to December 29, 2004 due to the change of members, only "housing Association under the provisions of Article 32 of the Housing Act" under the proviso of Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 732 of Jan. 5, 2005), which was enforced at that time, does not fall under the case of housing reconstruction association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act or the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.)

(2) the acquisition time and tax base;

On the other hand, acquisition tax shall be established at the time of acquisition of objects of taxation (Article 28(1)1 of the Local Tax Act), and the tax base of acquisition tax shall be the value as at the time of acquisition reported by the purchaser, and if there is no indication of reported or reported value or the reported value falls short of the statutory base value, it shall be based on such statutory base value (Article 111(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act). In the case of onerous succession acquisition, it shall be deemed that it has been acquired on the actual payment date or the balance payment date under contract, and in the case of gratuitous succession acquisition, it shall be deemed that it has been acquired on the contract date: Provided, That if registration was made before the date of registration or enrollment, it shall be deemed that it has been acquired on

In this case, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the old land of this case is the acquisition of trust property by trust and without compensation. Thus, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired from each member on the relevant day on which the trust contract was concluded individually with respect to the old land of this case, and at latest on the day the registration of ownership transfer was made due to each trust. In addition, since there was no report on the Plaintiff’s acquisition, the tax base shall be calculated according to the current base value on the day when the trust contract was concluded individually or the day

However, except in the case of re-trusting with respect to the land of this case due to a change of partners, the Defendant deemed the acquisition date of the ownership transfer and the date of final trust registration due to each trust, and calculated the tax base of the disposition of this case based on the current base value of the land of this case at the time of the acquisition of the entire land. Such disposition of this case was made for the convenience of taxation without any legal basis, and was unlawful in this part.

(3) A taxpayer

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that among the plaintiff's acquisition of the old land of this case, only the part determined as the land for its members at the time of inspection of the use of the apartment of this case, falls under the "real estate for association housing (referring to apartment houses, incidental facilities, welfare facilities, and land annexed thereto) acquired by a housing association under Article 44 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act for its members," and thus, the purchaser is deemed as its members. However, the plaintiff asserts that the whole land of this case falls under Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act and the acquisition of the old land of this case does not actually fall under Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff's acquisition of the old land of this case falls under Article 105

(A) Legislative intent of Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act

(1) Acquisition tax imposed prior to the amendment of the Local Tax Act.

With the amendment of the Local Tax Act on August 30, 1997, Article 105(10) and the proviso of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act were newly provided. In order to understand the legislative intent of the Local Tax Act, it is necessary to examine the taxation content of acquisition tax between the housing association and the association members before the establishment of the Local Tax Act.

Acquisition tax on the construction of the new building;

The housing association was exempted from acquisition tax under the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption") only for the association housing (multi-family housing and its ancillary welfare facilities) with an exclusive use area of 85 square meters or less, and the association members also have the exclusive use area of the association housing sold from the housing association is 60 square meters or less.

In this regard, there has been controversy over double taxation that acquisition tax on a newly built building of a housing association should be established again when it is transferred from the housing association to the association members. In this regard, the Supreme Court resolved double taxation problem because it is not the original acquisition by the housing association but the original acquisition by the association members. However, there has been criticism that there has been a conflict with the legal principles on attribution of ownership of the contracted building (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da3072 delivered on July 22, 2005).

(B) Acquisition tax on the site of a newly constructed building

First of all, where a reconstruction association acquires land from a member as a reason of trust, the reconstruction association was exempted from taxation pursuant to Article 110 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act"), and the members were exempted from taxation pursuant to Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Local Tax Act.

However, in the case of an area or workplace housing association where a reconstruction association purchases a newly-built site from a third party who is not a member of a reconstruction association, and where a newly-built site is acquired as a money trust of members, acquisition tax was exempted pursuant to the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption for the land acquired to build the association housing of a housing association until the amendment of the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption for the Act on January 25, 1997. Where a trust registration has been made at the time of acquisition along with the registration of ownership transfer, if a newly-built building is completed and a newly-built building is transferred to a member due to the reversion of trust property

The acquisition tax related to the acquisition of a newly-built site was not borne by the housing association and any member of the association. In order to solve the unfair tax practices, the Ordinance of reduction or exemption was amended on January 25, 1997, and the housing association acquired land to construct a housing association and made the registration of transfer of ownership and the registration of trust to construct a housing association, it shall be excluded from the exemption of acquisition tax, but only the time of establishment shall be the time of the registration of transfer of ownership to the members of the association due to the trust property's attribution rather than the time of acquisition by the housing association. Accordingly, the tax justice was resolved to some extent, but there was criticism that it does not fit Article 29 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act by extending the time of acquisition to the

On the other hand, there was no reason to impose acquisition tax on the reconstruction association which has already been exempt from taxation, since the rapid increase in real estate prices centered on the housing reconstruction market has not occurred due to the revitalization of housing reconstruction even before the time.

(2) Legislative intent

The legislative intent of Article 105(10) and the proviso of Article 110(1) of the Local Tax Act is to solve double taxation related to the newly built building in the first place, while it seems that there was a legislative aspect to solve the problems related to fair taxation related to land acquisition and the parts attached to the tax law theory of the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption, as seen below.

The content of acquisition tax on the acquisition of the existing land was exempted from the housing association by Article 110 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Local Tax Act at the time of the acquisition of the land by a member of the association or association, and was exempted from the housing association by Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Local Tax Act at the time of the transfer of the land to the association, and was exempted from the housing association by the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption when the registration of the trust is not accompanied by the registration of the new land by the money trust. When the new land is acquired by a money trust, it was imposed on the member because Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Local Tax Act at the time of the transfer to the association. If the new land is acquired by a money trust while the registration of the trust is accompanied by a money trust, it was imposed on the housing association at the time of transfer to the association by the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption.

On the other hand, each comparison of the new provisions can be seen as having been arranged as follows.

Where a housing association acquires from a member for the purpose of the association in relation to the establishment of the association, the housing association pursuant to Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act, and all the members of the association are not liable to pay acquisition tax, and the tax liability is not established under Article 110 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, and there is no change from the amendment.

With respect to the paragraphs of the Republic of Korea, at the time when a housing association acquires under Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act, it becomes liable to pay acquisition tax to its members at the time of acquisition, and 3) prior to the time of acquisition;

If a housing association and a member are liable to pay acquisition tax, it is reasonable to establish the acquisition tax liability for the members at the time of the first acquisition by the housing association, which is the time of the first acquisition, in consideration of the nature of the housing association, general acquisition, and the contents of the existing taxation, and thus, it seems reasonable to have been amended in a reasonable direction. In relation to the paragraph, the proviso of Article 110 (10) of the Local Tax Act, along with Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act, was newly established in addition to the proviso to Article 110 (10) of the Local Tax Act, without a significant change in the existing and existing contents of taxation, the portion that is not consistent with the tax law theory was resolved by the acquisition time of the existing problem (Article 29 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act), and the taxpayer was also taxed to the members,

(B) Interpretation of Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act

① Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant: (a) interpreted that “the housing association acquires real estate for a partnership’s housing to be owned by the head of the housing association, the association shall be deemed to have acquired such real estate; and (b) rendered the instant disposition by deeming that the said provision does not apply to the apartment for general sale. However, the interpretation as above is likely to be contrary to the strict interpretation of the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of fair taxation; (c) the legislative intent of the said provision and the existing practice are not consistent with the legislative intent of the said provision; and (d) it is difficult to interpret as

First, the meaning of "for the partner in question" can be interpreted as "for the purpose of selling to the partner in question", "for the use of the partner in question", and "for the partner in question". It is difficult to interpret it as "for the first member in question, it shall be the ownership of the member in question". Thus, it is likely to be contrary to the principle of strict interpretation of the principle of no taxation without law.

Second, even though Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act does not stipulate the acquisition of a housing association under the premise of establishing a tax liability, i.e., the person who acquires it as a member, i., the person liable for tax payment, and the timing for establishing a tax liability, if interpreted as above, it would not become an unspecified tax liability of the person liable for tax payment until becoming final and conclusive, and would be contrary to the premise. In addition, the elements for establishing a general acquisition tax liability, other than the requirements for establishing a tax liability, generally accepted articles that can be subject to imposition of acquisition tax reduction and exemption, are included in the requirements for establishing a new acquisition, thereby significantly turning the time of acquisition into force, and are likely to be contrary to

Third, acquisition tax shall be individually established for each acquired article, and the case where a housing association acquires a new site for several parcels of parcels or shares from its members (5 weeks)

Finally, it would be against the basic principles of acquisition tax that a single liability for acquisition tax is established by dividing the ownership of a new building that is sold to a partner until the ownership of a member becomes final and conclusive and the entire site of a new building that is sold to the general public is divided into shares in proportion to the ratio of a new building that is sold to a member and a new building that is sold to the general public. Meanwhile, it is unreasonable to say that the taxpayer has changed depending on whether a part of a newly constructed building becomes the ownership of a member of the company by dividing the building and its site while acquiring all of the building and its site by registering ownership transfer and trust from a member of the association, while the ownership transfer and trust registration is completed with respect to each sectional ownership of the existing condominium building, from a member of the association. In cases where a part of the newly constructed building after the registration of trust becomes final and conclusive as the ownership of the member of the association is cancelled due to the cancellation of the trust registration due to the change of the member and the trust registration of a new member is made again, it is unreasonable that the registration of ownership transfer and trust registration was not acquired.

Fourth, as to the portion acquired from a person other than a cooperative member, the Defendant: (a) deemed that a housing association is liable to pay acquisition tax for the entire portion without deducting the portion sold to the cooperative member; and (b) received acquisition tax for the portion of 1,214.6 square meters, which the Plaintiff purchased from a third party, without deducting the portion sold to the cooperative member; (c) however, as argued by the Defendant, even if a person who interpreted Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act acquires acquired acquired acquired article from a third party as long as the requirements are met, it cannot be said that a liability to pay acquisition tax for the entire acquired article is established with respect to the housing association. Nevertheless, deeming that a liability to pay acquisition tax is established for the remaining portion after deducting the portion sold to the cooperative member, separately

Fifth, the defendant constitutes Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act and thus, even if a purchaser becomes a partner, the defendant is not liable to pay acquisition tax for the members. The reason is that the person acquires the existing shares or part of the specific shares or part of the new site acquired by the housing association from each member. However, the ownership of the relevant member is only an apartment house that the relevant member purchases in lots. As such, since the member does not acquire the land in itself as it is, it does not constitute the acquisition of the land in question, a certain portion of the member's tax liability is established and it goes against the legislative purpose.

Sixth, when interpreting as alleged by the Defendant, the proviso of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act imposes acquisition tax liability on the reconstruction association for the part corresponding to the share of the site of a newly-built building sold to the general public under the proviso of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act. In this case, compared with the real estate trust business entity not subject to tax pursuant to the main sentence of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act, the reconstruction association is discriminated without reasonable grounds, and the proviso of Article 110 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act, which is closely related to Article 105(10)

(2) Proper interpretation

Ultimately, the meaning of Article 105 (10) of the Local Tax Act "a real estate for an association's housing acquired by the relevant association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the relevant association member" means that "the purpose of acquiring real estate for the association member shall be deemed to have been acquired by the relevant association member or all the relevant association members when the association acquires the real estate for the association member" complies with the principle of strict interpretation of the principle of no taxation without law. It is reasonable in terms of the need to interpret the meaning of "i.e., the legal nature of the housing association is an unincorporated association as the subject of rights and obligations, separate from the association member, but its nature is external and internally similar to the association under the Civil Act). It is also reasonable in terms of the legislative purport, existing tax practices and basic principles, and the need to interpret it constitutionally in relation to the relationship with the proviso of Article 110 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act newly established.

As such, in the case of a reconstruction association, which is acquired by the housing association from each member on the grounds of trust, the housing association and each member shall not be liable to pay acquisition tax, unless there are special circumstances. However, in the case of a workplace or local housing association acquired from a third party who is not a member, the housing association shall be liable to pay acquisition tax to all its members at the time of acquisition by acquiring it for all its members. Therefore, a reasonable taxation may be made in any case.

(C) Conclusion

In this case, all of the old land acquired by the Plaintiff from each member of the association based on trust is acquired for each member of the association in accordance with Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act, and as a result, each member becomes a acquisitor and acquires each member of the association as they are, and thus, both the Plaintiff and the association member are not liable to pay acquisition tax. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful in this respect.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)

(1) Supreme Court Decision 94Da34968 delivered on June 11, 1996 held that the above decision was de facto modified by the purport that the transfer of the land acquired by money trust to the truster partner due to the trust property does not fall under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Local Tax Act when it is transferred to the truster partner due to the trust property from the Supreme Court Decision 98Du10950 delivered on May 30, 200, and that it does not fall under Article 110 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Local Tax Act.

2) The reasons for the proposal among the Government's Bill of Amendment (No. 520) of the Local Tax Act on June 1997.

3) Although a housing association may consider the case where it pays acquisition tax without applying Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act, it may not be likely that such a case may arise if it assumes that a housing association should make an economic judgment by re-establishment of acquisition tax liability for its members at the time of transferring the association members. Provided, That in the case of a reconstruction association, it is reasonable to impose acquisition tax once by acquiring land from a third party for its members who own more shares in excess of its own shares among its members. However, unlike the workplace housing association of money trust, it is extremely extremely small and very complicated and complicated in calculation, and it is difficult to apply Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act without applying Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act, and it reports and pays acquisition tax

4) Even in this case, the housing association may consider the case where it pays acquisition tax without applying Article 105(10) of the Local Tax Act, but if it assumes that the housing association should make an economic decision, it may not be likely to cause such case.

Note 5) The registration of a trust is made individually for a long time due to the registration of a trust by the members of the Union while normal directors.