Cloogleex Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Clified, Attorneys Kang Jin-sin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap23293 decided October 7, 2010

March 31, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s imposition of registration tax of KRW 2,384,670,510 against the Plaintiff on March 24, 2009, and the imposition of the local education tax of KRW 476,934,00, and the registration tax of KRW 794,890,170, and the local education tax of KRW 158,978,030, respectively, shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The text shall be as shown in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 25, 1987, the Plaintiff was a corporation established by absorbing Culpex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Copex”) as the principal office on March 25, 1987, and completed the merger registration on June 8, 2005.

B. Copis (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were established on December 21, 1972, and the head office was transferred on February 1, 1993 to Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), and each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and sports facilities installed thereon were leased from Copis and operated various sports facilities business, such as swimming pool, golf practice range, and bowling place.

C. On June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) registered the business of Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) where he used the instant real estate as its head office among the instant real estate; (b) on the other hand, upon the said merger, acquired the human and physical facilities of Culpex as they were; (c) operated the instant sports facilities business as in the instant real estate; and (d) on December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate and the sports facilities installed thereon from Culp&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SbC”), the new owner of the instant real estate, who acquired the instant real estate from Culp from Culp Co., Ltd., Ltd., the new owner of the instant real estate, and continued to operate the instant business.

D. After that, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 39,989,621,965 (including value-added tax) on January 19, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 24, 2009.

E. The Plaintiff reported and paid registration tax, etc. on March 24, 2009 when completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant real estate, pursuant to Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Act”), and Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21498, May 21, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), the amount of local education tax to be applied shall be 39,74,508,696 won according to the Defendant’s opinion that the heavy taxation rate under Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 102(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Education Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21498, May 21, 2009; hereinafter “Local Education Tax Act”) and the amount of local education tax shall be determined as the tax return and the tax amount of local education tax.

F. On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection, but the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on April 8, 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute over the ground of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 13 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s merger of Coulex’s headquarters, which was operating in the instant real estate, changed the Plaintiff’s main office to its main office, and took over and used the Plaintiff’s human and physical facilities as it is, and did not newly establish a branch office, not increase the number of stores with the effect of causing population inflow or economic concentration in the large city. In such a case, in order to determine whether the Plaintiff satisfies the heavy taxation requirement under Article 138(1)3 of the Act, the Plaintiff should determine whether the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was made within five years from the date of establishment of the head office of the extinguished Coulex, Ltd. In order to determine whether the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was made within five years from the date of the Plaintiff’s acquisition and registration of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s registration tax and the registration tax cannot be imposed on the instant real estate in the Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), which was far more than five years prior to the date of its registration and registration. Therefore, the disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 138(1)3 of the Act provides that "real estate registration and real estate registration after its establishment, establishment, and transfer shall be subject to heavy registration taxes for "real estate registration following the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of a branch office or a branch office in a large city and the relocation of a main office, a branch office, or a branch office in a large city" under Article 138(1)3 of the Act. Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree provides that "real estate registration after its establishment, establishment, and transfer" refers to all the real estate registration acquired within five years from the date of its establishment, establishment, and transfer. Thus, the merger and consolidation of previous companies and maintenance and continuation of a branch office only after its establishment and transfer constitutes the establishment of a branch office in a large city under the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6566, Sept. 3, 2004).

In this case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant branch constitutes the establishment of a branch in a large city as provided in the latter part of Article 138(1)3 of the Act and Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the acquisition of the instant real estate, which was made within five years thereafter, is subject to heavy taxation in accordance with the aforementioned provision, on March 24, 2009, after the lapse of three years and nine months from the time when the said branch was established, by absorbing Cloendex’s business operator registered the instant real estate and accepting the human and physical facilities of Cloendex as they were used as its principal office.

D. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s establishment of the branch of this case or the registration of the acquisition of the real estate of this case by a merger between the Plaintiff and the Koman is not subject to heavy taxation pursuant to Article 102(7) of the Enforcement Decree, the Plaintiff will examine the interpretation of the above provision below.

㈎ 법 제138조 는 대도시 지역 내 법인등기 등의 중과에 대하여 규정하면서 제3항 에서 등록세 중과세의 범위와 적용기준 기타 필요한 사항을 대통령령에 위임하고 있고, 이에 따라 시행령 제102조 는 “대도시 내 법인 등 중과세의 범위와 적용기준”이라는 제목 아래 각 항에서 법 제138조 제1항 각호 의 등기의 내용과 그 범위에 관하여 이를 구체적으로 규정하고 있는데, 제7항 은 “대도시 안에서 설립 후 5년이 경과한 법인(이하 이 항에서 "기존법인"이라 한다)이 다른 기존법인과 합병하는 경우에는 이를 중과세 대상으로 보지 아니하며, 기존법인이 대도시 안에서 설립 후 5년이 경과되지 아니한 법인과 합병하는 경우에는 합병 당시 기존법인에 대한 자산비율에 해당하는 부분을 중과세 대상으로 보지 아니한다. 이 경우 자산비율은 자산을 평가하는 때에는 평가액을 기준으로 계산한 비율로 하고, 자산을 평가하지 아니하는 때에는 합병 당시의 장부가액을 기준으로 계산한 비율로 한다.”라고 규정하면서 시행령 제102조 제2항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제3호 관련 규정), 제4항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제2호 및 제3호 관련 규정), 제5항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제1호 관련 규정)과는 달리 법 제138조 제1항 제1 , 2 , 3호 에 대한 구분을 두고 있지 않다.

In addition, the purpose of legislation of heavy registration tax on the registration of real estate and the registration of real estate after its establishment in a large city under Article 138(1) of the Act and Article 102 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act is to preserve and improve the living environment of residents in a large city and promote balanced regional economic growth or revitalization of regional economy by preventing a new population inflow and concentration of economic power, taking into account the fact that the concentration effect of population and economic power resulting from the establishment and relocation in a large city may much more than that of natural persons, as well as that of natural persons, more convenient and economic benefits than those of juristic persons outside a large city may be obtained by enjoying high level of cluster interests, and thus, the above heavy registration tax is delegated to the Presidential Decree, and accordingly, the specific scope of heavy registration tax is set forth in Article 138(3) of the Act, and the purpose of legislation of heavy registration tax is to restrain the merger of juristic persons within 20 years and to prevent the merger of juristic persons within 30 years after the above provision of Article 102(6) of the Enforcement Decree.

㈏ 이 같은 법 제138조 중과세 규정의 입법취지, 시행령 제102조 제7항 이 대도시 안에서 설립 후 5년이 경과한 기존법인과 기존법인이 합병하는 경우와 기존법인이 대도시 안에서 설립 후 5년이 경과되지 아니한 법인과 합병하는 경우를 대별하여 중과세 대상의 범위를 규율하면서 기존법인이 대도시 안에서 설립 후 5년이 경과되지 아니한 법인과 합병하는 경우에는 합병 당시 기존법인에 대한 자산비율에 해당하는 부분을 중과세 대상에서 제외하고 있는 점 및 시행령 제102조 제7항 이 같은 조 제2항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제3호 관련 규정), 제4항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제2호 및 제3호 관련 규정), 제5항 ( 법 제138조 제1항 제1호 관련 규정)과는 달리 법 제138조 제1항 제1호 제1 , 2 , 3호 에 대한 구분을 두고 있지 않은 규정형식을 취하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 대도시 내로의 새로운 인구유입 또는 경제력 집중의 문제를 발생시키지 않는 기존법인과 기존법인이 합병하는 경우에는 법 제138조 제1항의 각 호 를 적용함에 있어 그 전부가 중과세 대상이 되지 않는다고 봄이 상당하다.

㈐ 이 사건에서, 원고와 코오롱스포렉스가 모두 합병 당시 이미 대도시 내에서 설립 후 5년이 경과한 법인(법문상 ‘기존법인’)인 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 시행령 제102조 제7항 에 대한 위 법리에 따르면, 기존법인인 원고와 코오롱스포렉스가 합병한 경우 구 지방세법 제138조 제1항의 각 호 를 적용함에 있어 원고와 코오롱스포렉스의 각 자산비율에 해당하는 부분(전부)을 중과세의 대상으로 삼지 않게 되므로, 결국 원고가 코오롱스포렉스를 흡수합병하여 그 지점을 설치한 후 5년 내에 이 사건 부동산을 취득등기하였다고 하더라도 원고와 코오롱스포렉스의 합병 당시 각 자산비율(전부)에 해당하는 부분은 그 합병에도 불구하고 새로운 인구 유입이나 점포수 증가를 포함한 경제력 집중을 유발하지 않으므로 이 사건 부동산취득등기에 대하여는 그 전부에 관하여 등록세를 중과할 수 없다고 할 것이다( 대법원 2004. 9. 24. 선고 2003두7293 판결 참조). 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 있다.

㈑ 따라서, 원고의 이 사건 부동산등기에 대하여는 시행령 제107조 제2항 에 의하여 등록세 중과를 할 수 없음에도 이와 달리 보고 등록세 중과를 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

The defendant argues that, in case the surviving corporation succeeds to the existing real estate at the time of the merger, registration tax is heavy, and registration tax is not subject to heavy registration tax, but if the acquisition of the real estate from a third party other than the extinguished corporation is excluded from registration tax, the surviving corporation actually establishes the place of business, acquires the real estate from another third party, and temporarily operates the real estate by leasing it to the extinguished corporation, and thus, the above heavy registration tax provisions should be applied accordingly.

The following facts are met: ① the Defendant asserts that, if the surviving corporation succeeds to the existing real estate at the time of the merger, the registration tax would be excessive at the time of the acquisition of the real estate. However, if the merged corporation established in a large city at the time of the registration of the acquisition of the real estate, and the registration tax is not excessive around that time, it is determined whether the surviving corporation succeeds to the real estate already owned by the merged corporation under Article 102(7) of the Enforcement Decree, and it is not determined whether the acquisition tax would be excessive depending on whether the surviving corporation would continue to exist under Article 102(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. The latter part of Article 102 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that, in the case of a merger with a corporation for which five years have not passed since the acquisition of the real estate at the time of the acquisition of the real estate by the merged corporation, the acquisition of the real estate at the time of the above new acquisition of the real estate by the merged corporation would be an economically contradictory corporation and thus, it does not constitute an economic difference between the Plaintiff and the existing corporation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and it is so decided

[Attachment]

On the same day as judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)