1. All appeals filed by the Defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the determination of the Defendant’s assertion in the following paragraphs, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the instant disposition was lawful since the heavy registration tax rate should apply to the real estate registration on the entire community facilities and sanatoriums of this case, not only the instant office, but also the instant court’s application of the heavy registration tax rate for the real estate registration on the entire community facilities and sanatoriums. However, as to the portion not used directly for the principal office other than the instant office among the instant disposition 1, the portion of applying the heavy registration tax rate is unlawful.

The reasons are as follows.

① 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 of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment”) provides that “real estate registration acquired by the relevant juristic person or its branch prior to its establishment, establishment, and transfer of a corporation’s head office, main office, branch office, or branch office in a large city” under Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act means all the real estate registration acquired by the relevant juristic person or its branch office prior to its establishment, establishment, and transfer.”

With regard to this, there was criticism that Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment, using the term "real estate registration of a body", there was a possibility of violating the parent law by excessively expanding the scope of the real estate registration due to the establishment of a corporation and the establishment of a branch or sub-office in a large city under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act and the relocation of a branch or sub-office in a large city.

In addition, Article 102 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, amended on May 21, 2009, is the corporation in question.