Whether acquisition tax is imposed on the termination of title trust of the real estate trusted under another person's name without completing registration under his/her own name;

If the Plaintiff purchased real estate and completed the registration of transfer in the Non-Party’s future, and completed the registration of transfer in the Plaintiff’s future due to the termination of trust by the protocol of pre-litigation between the Non-Party and the Non-Party, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of real estate cannot be included in the acquisition under Article 110(1)4 of the Local Tax Act and it

Article 110 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act, Article 79-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu212 Decided March 8, 1983

Plaintiff

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu455 delivered on January 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of Article 110 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act is to exclude the acquisition of trust property from the acquisition of trust property where the trust property is transferred from the truster or his heir due to the termination or termination of the trust established by the Trust Act. Article 79-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is nothing more than a provision clarifying the definition of trust under Article 110 (1) of the Local Tax Act as a matter of interpretation (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu212, Mar. 8, 1983). Therefore, the court below determined that the Plaintiff purchased real estate on February 23, 1971 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party on the ground that the trust was completed by the Busan District Court 81Da3410, Sep. 15, 1981. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of real estate is legitimate because it is not a new acquisition of real estate from the truster due to the termination or termination of the trust under Article 110 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act.

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.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)