A. Whether acquisition tax exemption under Article 110(1)4 of the Local Tax Act is applicable where a title truster terminates a real estate title trust and receives the registration of ownership transfer from a title trustee (negative)

(b) Whether a loan constitutes a loan under Article 110-3 (2) 8 of the Local Tax Act where a loan is made from a bank requested by the head of a local veterans office after completing the registration of ownership transfer on a house and used the loan in advance for the acquisition of a house with such money (negative)

A. Where a title truster terminates a title trust on a row house and receives the registration of ownership transfer from a title trustee, it does not fall under the subject of acquisition tax exemption under Article 110(1)4 of the Local Tax Act.

B. Even if the Plaintiff received a loan from a bank requested by the head of a local veterans' office after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to a tenement house and used the loan in advance to acquire the apartment house with the money, it does not constitute a loan under Article 110-3 (2) 8 of the Local Tax Act in light of the provisions of Articles 46, 48, 49, 52, and 56 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons, etc., of Distinguished Services to the State.

(a) Article 110 (1) 4 of the Local Tax Act; b. Articles 46, 48, 49, 52, and 56 of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons, etc., of Distinguished Service to the State; and Article 110-3 (2) 8 of the Local Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu52 delivered on November 27, 1984 (Gong1985,83) 88Nu8098 delivered on March 28, 1989 (Gong1989,700) 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 1990 (Gong190,902)

Plaintiff

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu796 delivered on August 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the evidence, the court below determined that the existing apartment house owned by the plaintiff was entrusted to the same-sex Housing Construction Co., Ltd., and the non-party company removed the above house, and newly constructed the apartment house in this case to the plaintiff 36.6 million won, and that the ownership of the existing apartment house was lost due to the removal, and that the existing apartment house in this case was newly built by the non-party company, and that the previous apartment house in this case was acquired at the original time by the non-party company, and that the above 36.6 million won, which is the purchase price on the sales certificate submitted to the registry at the time when the ownership transfer registration is to be paid in the name of the plaintiff, shall be deemed as the tax base of this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court

Even if the Plaintiff terminated a title trust and received the registration of transfer of ownership from a non-party company, a title trustee, in such a case, it does not constitute the subject of acquisition tax exemption under Article 110(1)4 of the Local Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3489 delivered on March 9, 190).

In addition, as alleged by the plaintiff, if the plaintiff received a loan from the bank requested by the head of the Seoul Regional Veterans Administration after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the apartment house of this case for the purpose of acquiring the apartment house of this case, the loan is not subject to the exemption of acquisition tax as provided by Article 110-3 (2) 8 of the Local Tax Act in light of the provisions of Articles 46, 48, 49, 52 and 56 of the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State Act, even if the loan was used in advance for the purpose of acquiring the apartment house of this case with the money, and thus, it is not subject to the exemption

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. All of the arguments are without merit.

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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)