[1] The meaning of "branch or sub-branch" in real estate registration following the establishment of a branch or sub-branch in a large city, which is a requirement for heavy registration tax under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act, and whether the employment form of the human organization must take the form of direct control over the pertinent juristic person (negative)

[2] Where a company entrusted with real estate management services by a real estate investment trust performs its business as a branch of the investment company under the direction and supervision of the investment company in addition to performing general building management services although it takes the form of an independent corporation independent of the investment trust, the company falls under the "branch" under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act

[1] According to 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 same Act, and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the term "branch or sub-branch" means a business place registered under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, where the business or business of the pertinent corporation continues to be conducted with human and material facilities, regardless of its name, and the term "personal facilities" in this context means that the number of people are stationed under the direction and supervision of the pertinent corporation and does not require the form of employment directly belonging to the pertinent corporation.

[2] The case holding that where a company entrusted with real estate management services by a real estate investment trust takes the form of an independent corporation from the above real estate investment trust, but actually carries out its business as a branch of the investment company under the direction and supervision of the investment company in addition to performing general building management services, it constitutes "branch" under Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act

[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, Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule 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 Rule of the Local Tax Act, Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du3188 delivered on May 11, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 1544 delivered on April 24, 1998) (Gong199Sang, 1192) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6900 delivered on October 9, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Du6546 Delivered on December 22, 2006

Sbru Investmentcom (Attorneys Lee Yong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul High Law Firm, Attorneys Park Sang-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu20561 delivered on October 6, 2005

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 138 (1) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6549 of Dec. 29, 2001; hereinafter the "former Local Tax Act"), Article 102 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 55-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the term "branch or sub-branch" means a workplace registered under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, or the Income Tax Act, where its business or business is conducted continuously with human and material equipment, regardless of its name, and the term "personal equipment" here means a place where a person is stationed under the direction and supervision of the relevant corporation and does not require the form of employment directly belonging to the relevant corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du2737, Apr. 24, 1998).

After compiling the selected evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. After acquiring the real estate of this case on August 7, 2001 and completing the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff completed the registration of business under the name of the plaintiff branch with the location of the real estate of this case on August 29, 201, and conducted the real estate rental business, the court below concluded a management consignment contract with Samil Development Co., Ltd. established for the management of the real estate of this case and received the building management services, such as building cleaning, facility management, safety management, etc. from Samil Development. However, while Samil Development had a real estate principal office at the location of this case, in addition to the above management services, he prepared a tax invoice for rent and management expenses in the name of the non-party, who is the head of the Korean branch office of this case, and delivered it to the lessee with the permission of the above non-party, and concluded the lease contract of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, such as the fees for entrusted services to be received from the plaintiff and the value-added tax, and decided that it was legitimate within the plaintiff's business to be conducted after completion or execution.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration of real estate or violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)