Albnb Co., Ltd.

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

April 19, 2012

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap21652 decided October 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of registration tax of KRW 33,508,530 against the plaintiff on June 10, 2010 and the imposition of local education tax of KRW 6,162,490 against the plaintiff shall be revoked (the above tax amount shall be deemed to include penalty tax in the records).

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, are cited as the reasons for the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff asserts that the revised Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "amended Local Tax Act") Article 6 of the Addenda (hereinafter referred to as the "amended Local Tax Act"; hereinafter referred to as the "the supplementary provisions of this case") should be a provision that exceptionally applies the former Act in favor of the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's vested rights and trust in the case where the tax law was amended disadvantageous to the taxpayer as an exception to the principle of non-payment. Thus, Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act, not the amended Local Tax Act, is applied to the registration of transfer of this case, and therefore, the disposition of this case applying the heavy taxation rate to the registration of transfer of this case based on Article 138 (1) 3 of the amended Local Tax Act, etc. is unlawful.

However, in cases where tax laws and regulations are amended disadvantageous to taxpayers, even if there are cases where the previous provisions favorable to taxpayers are applied for the purpose of acquiring rights or protecting trust of taxpayers based on the previous provisions of the Addenda of the tax laws as amended, including "the previous provisions concerning ○○○○," but the previous provisions that were effective at the time of the act of cause before the establishment of the tax liability do not expressly stipulate that the tax exemption or exemption based on the act of cause should be granted or postponed for a limited period of the future, even if the taxpayer has trusted the tax exemption or exemption under the previous provisions, it is merely merely a simple expectation, and it cannot be deemed that it should be protected, as it is in lieu of the right of acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du13713, May 29, 2001). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the previous provisions of the Local Tax Act were not applied to 10 years after the amendment of the provisions of the Local Tax Act as an exception to the former Local Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100 days after the amendment of the Local Tax Act).

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)