Whether the late payment charge for land sale is included in the actual acquisition price as provided for in the Local Tax Act.

The actual acquisition price provided for in Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act shall be interpreted as including the amount actually paid by the purchaser of the object of taxation for the acquisition, even if the title is not the acquisition price, if the purchaser of the object of taxation actually paid for the acquisition of the object of taxation, it shall be interpreted as including the above. The overdue charge due to the delay in payment of land purchase price shall be the amount actually paid by the purchaser of the overdue charge or the purchaser for the acquisition of the land. Therefore, it shall be

Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Hong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu595 delivered on February 23, 1982

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below is without merit. If the plaintiff purchases 1,345 square meters (as a result of the implementation of a land readjustment project, 1,34,59 square meters 1,44 square meters 41, Dong-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul) and 1 other than 54,634 square meters in total, 19 billion won for the purchase of 19,00 million won and 1.9 billion won for the intermediate payment, 7.6 billion won for the remaining 9.30,1978, and each of the above money is paid to the plaintiff by 1,360,000 won for the purchase of 30,000,000 won for the above 1,000,0000 won for the purchase, 1,000,000 won for the above 1,000,000 won for the purchase, 3,000,000 won for the above 1,59,000 won for the above money.

However, the actual acquisition price provided for in Articles 130(3) and 111(5) of the Local Tax Act shall be interpreted to include the amount actually paid by the purchaser of the object of taxation for the acquisition of the object of taxation even if the title is not the acquisition price. 1,066,491,543 won of late payment of the purchase and sale of the land of this case as determined by the court below is the amount actually paid by the Plaintiff, who is the acquisitor, for the acquisition of the land. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the actual acquisition price as stipulated in the above Local Tax Act constitutes a part of the acquisition price.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that revoked the defendant's disposition of imposing the registration tax on the ground that it was illegal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the actual acquisition price under the Local Tax Act, and thus, the appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)