[1] In a case where the requirements for an excessive registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act are met, whether the application of the same may vary depending on whether it is contrary to the legislative purpose (negative)

[2] The case holding that where a merchant bank transferred under the Financial Supervisory Commission's "decision of contract transfer" with the assets and liabilities of an insolvent financial institution whose head office is located in Seoul moved its head office to the address of the insolvent financial institution and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land and buildings owned by the insolvent financial institution within five years after the establishment of the corporation in a large city, such registration constitutes a requirement for heavy registration

[1] Under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 2001), Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the heavy registration tax provision aims to prevent population expansion due to population inflow in a large city and to promote a population dispersion in a large city. However, once the facts requiring statutory requirements are met, the above Acts and subordinate statutes should be applied uniformly. In a specific case, the application of the above provisions cannot be determined by considering whether the legislative purpose is inconsistent with the legislative purpose.

[2] The case holding that where a merchant bank transferred under the Financial Supervisory Commission's "decision on Contract Transfers" with assets and liabilities of an insolvent financial institution whose head office is located in Seoul moved its head office to the seat of the insolvent financial institution and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land and buildings owned by the insolvent financial institution, registration of real estate acquired within five years from the establishment of a corporation in a large city constitutes an excessive registration

[1] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 2001); Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act / [2] Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 2001); Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du1673 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 799)

Korean Bank (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorney Ansan-won, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu1093 delivered on September 2, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 138(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549, Dec. 29, 2001; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer of a juristic person or a branch in a large city shall be one of the subject of heavy registration tax. Article 102(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “The term “real estate registration after the establishment, establishment, and transfer” in Article 138(1)3 of the Act means any real estate registration that is acquired within five years after the establishment, establishment, transfer, or transfer of a juristic person or a branch office, etc., for non-business, non-business, or non-business purposes.” The above registration tax provision and the large city shall prevent population increase due to population inflow within the large city and meet the requirements of the law, and shall be applied uniformly, if the legislative purpose of the Act and subordinate statutes are met, it shall not be decided in accordance with the specific legislative purpose of the Act and subordinate statutes.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, acknowledged the fact that the real estate of this case and the real estate of this case, which are the building and land located in the above main office, have been registered for transfer of ownership as of March 30, 201 by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation for the purpose of liquidation of four insolvent financial institutions, including the central financial corporation (hereinafter “central Financial Corporation”) under the restructuring plan announced by the Financial Supervisory Commission (hereinafter “the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation”), which was established on November 3, 200 by making Da-dong, Seoul as its main office in a large city as one of the principal offices (hereinafter “one-year Financial Corporation”), and determined that the acquisition and transfer of the real estate of this case had not been registered for transfer of ownership as of March 30, 201 as of the principal office of this case and its main office was not subject to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation’s new establishment of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation.

However, in light of the above legal principles and the facts established by the court below that it is impossible to determine whether to apply the provision of registration tax, the acquisition of real estate of this case is one of the registration of real estate acquired within five years after the establishment of a corporation in a large city. In this case, regardless of whether the headquarters existing from the previous location is transferred to the real estate of this case, the acquisition of the real estate of this case constitutes the requirements for the imposition of registration tax, and the fact that the real estate of this case was acquired to implement the "decision on contract transfer" of the gold reduction, the registration tax of this case is specially exempted pursuant to Article 119 (1) 12 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6538 of Dec. 29, 2001), and it is difficult to determine that the provision of heavy and heavy registration tax is not in violation of the legislative purpose of the provisions concerning heavy and heavy registration tax. Accordingly, the registration tax of this case cannot be deemed to be excluded from the registration tax of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7293 Decided September 24, 2004 added that the case is different from the case and thus cannot be applied to this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)