[1] In a case where a person becomes a project executor after obtaining ownership of a site or constructed facility in the relevant urban redevelopment zone after the authorization to implement an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act is granted, whether the “owner at the time of authorization to implement a project” under Article 109(3) of the former Local Tax Act

[2] The meaning of "Article 109 of the Local Tax Act" under Article 4 (6) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Rural Development Tax Act, which prescribes the subject of non-taxation of special rural development tax

[1] Article 109(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993, and amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200) provides that acquisition tax shall not be imposed on land and buildings acquired by the owner (including his inheritor) at the time of authorization for the implementation of an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act due to the implementation of an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act. In light of the history, reason for the amendment, and relevant provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act, etc. of the said provision after the authorization for the implementation of the project, where the ownership of land or constructed facilities in the relevant redevelopment project zone is acquired and the project implementer becomes the project implementer with the authorization for the implementation of the project, it does not fall

[2] Article 4 subparagraph 12 of the Act on Special Rural Development provides that special rural development tax shall not be levied for technology and human resources development, property formation of low-income earners, public works, etc., or for efficient operation of the national economy, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 4 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14868 of Dec. 30, 1995) provides that the term “those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under Article 4 subparagraph 12 of the Act on Special Rural Development and Fisheries refer to the reduction or exemption falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 109 of the Local Tax Act provides that acquisition tax shall not be levied under Article 4 (6) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Act No. 1093 of Jul. 16, 1994). Article 4 (6) 109 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14095, Jul. 16, 20194). 197.

[1] Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993, and amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200) / [2] Article 4 subparagraph 12 of the Act on Special Rural Development, Article 4 (6) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Rural Development (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14868 of Dec. 30, 1995), Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1587 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 438), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14415 delivered on May 12, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1439) Supreme Court Decision 200Du9090 Delivered on January 30, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 569)

KS Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (former Trade Name: National Life Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu8003 delivered on February 3, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the first proposal

Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993, and amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act") provides that the acquisition tax shall not be imposed on the land and buildings acquired by the owner at the time of authorization for project implementation (including his inheritor) under the management and disposal plan due to the execution of an urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act. In light of the history of the above provision, reason for amendment, and relevant provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Act, it is reasonable to view that the ownership of the land or constructed facilities within the relevant redevelopment project zone after the authorization for project implementation is granted and the project implementation is approved and the project implementer becomes the project implementer with the authorization for project implementation.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no ground for misunderstanding the legal nature of project implementation authorization.

We cannot accept this assertion in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the second proposal

Article 4 subparag. 12 of the Act on Special Rural Development and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Agricultural and Fisheries Tax Act") provides that special agricultural and fishing villages tax (hereinafter referred to as the "agricultural and fishing villages tax") shall be non-taxation for the purpose of securing national competitiveness, such as technology and human resources development, low-income earners' property formation, public services, etc., and for the efficient operation of the national economy, and Article 4 subparag. 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14868 of Dec. 30, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that special agricultural and fishing villages tax shall be non-taxation, and Article 4 subparag. 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14868 of Dec. 30, 195, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Agricultural and Fishing Villages Tax Act") provides that "Article 109(6)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall not be imposed until 97.197.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the plaintiff's trust due to the misapprehension of the legal principles on the interpretation of tax statutes

We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)