구분소유적 공유관계에 있어 취득세 과세 여부: 대법원 2021. 11. 11. 선고 2017두57769 판결

Since the interpretation of tax law has a very close relationship with judicial relations, the biggest controversial topic with regards to the relations between tax law and judicial law is the legality and validity of judicial transactions and the possibility of relevant taxation. Under the Local Tax Act, acquisition tax does not directly borrow the concept of ownership under the Civil Act, but redefines the act subject to taxation with the term "acquisition". Therefore, there arises a question as to whether there exists a restriction imposed by the legal interpretation of judicial relations in the interpretation of ownership, which is the object of acquisition tax. In this regard, we reviewed Supreme Court Decision (2017du57769) decided on November 11th, 2021; the ruling deals with the acquisition of ownership and the decision of payer of acquisition tax among owners of a single building. We first reviewed the significance of the sectional ownership as an exception to the principle of one-thing-to-one-right, which was the main issue of the case ruling. Then we reviewed whether public announcement is necessary in relation to the sectional action that the precedent sees as a requirement for the establishment of sectional ownership. Afterwards, in order to review the meaning of acquisition in acquisition tax, the issue of judicial interpretation in the interpretation of the concept of borrowing and tax law was reviewed, specifically, whether acquisition tax could be levied on ownership which is invalid under the law. We concluded that public announcement is not necessary in acknowledging the sectional action, and we determined that judicial interpretation could be used in the interpretation of acquisition under the acquisition tax. Furthermore, it should be that the concept of actual acquisition should be understood with the assumption that the judicial law takes priority over others when interpreting tax law. The actual acquisition is stipulated to determine the taxpayer when the subjects of actual ownership and legal ownership are disparate, and it is not intended to expand the scope of concept of acquisition that is not recognized by law. The Supreme Court Decision judged on the sectional ownership with regards to civil law, and the Court determined whether the disposition of acquisition tax was legal; the disposition of acquisition tax itself was neither judged nor explained. The absence of stipulation seems to be derived from its usage of the concept of acquisition, which is subject to acquisition tax, directly from judicial relations. And it judged according to the concept of borrowing, which is derived from the interpretation of tax law and judicial relations. Even if the concept of practical acquisition had become an issue in the ruling, it would have been difficult to acknowledge the claim in that the judicial law overrides the interpretation of the tax law.