Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Acquisition tax on infrastructure transferred without charge
Supreme Court, Apr. 11, 2019, 2018Du35841 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 취득세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a project operator receives, without charge, a maintenance infrastructure facility whose use is discontinued under the latter part of Article 65(2) of the former Urban and Housing Environment Renewal Act, must it pay acquisition tax on the real property constituting that facility, using the acquisition-date market standard value and the rate under Article 11(1)(ii) of the former Local Tax Act?
Holding
Yes. Because the operator received the discontinued facility without charge under the latter part of Article 65(2), and there was no separate consideration or basis to treat the operator as having created the ownership itself, the acquisition was a gratuitous succession rather than a gratuitous original acquisition. The operator must therefore pay acquisition tax and related taxes on the real property constituting the facility, using the market standard value at the acquisition date and the rate of thirty-five thousandths under Article 11(1)(ii) of the former Local Tax Act. The Supreme Court found no error in the lower court's rejection of an exemption under Article 74(1) of the former Special Act on Restriction and Limitation of Special Tax Exemptions and Reductions.
Points at issue, verbatim
사업시행자가 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제65조 제2항 후단 규정에 따라 용도폐지되는 정비기반시설을 국가 등으로부터 무상으로 양도받아 취득한 경우, 위 정비기반시설을 구성하는 부동산에 관하여 취득 당시를 기준으로 한 무상취득에 따른 과세표준과 구 지방세법 제11조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 세율 등을 적용한 취득세 등을 납부할 의무가 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a project operator has acquired, without consideration, by transfer from the State, etc., improvement of base facilities whose use is discontinued pursuant to the latter part of Article 65(2) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, whether the operator is obligated to pay acquisition tax, etc. by applying, with respect to the real property constituting the above improvement of base facilities, the tax base based on acquisition without consideration as of the time of acquisition and the tax rate prescribed in Article 11(1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
따라서 사업시행자는 이 사건 후단 규정에 의하여 용도폐지되는 정비기반시설을 국가 등으로부터 무상으로 양도받아 취득할 따름이고 따로 그에 대한 대가를 출연하거나 소유권을 창설적으로 취득한다고 볼 사정도 없는 이상, 사업시행자가 위 정비기반시설을 구성하는 부동산을 취득한 것은 무상의 승계취득에 해당하므로, 그에 따른 해당 부동산에 관한 취득 당시를 기준으로 한 과세표준과 구 지방세법 제11조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 세율 등을 적용한 취득세 등을 납부할 의무가 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, the project operator merely acquires, without consideration, by transfer from the State, etc., the improvement of base facilities whose use is discontinued pursuant to the latter part of the article in this case, and since there are no circumstances under which the project operator separately contributes consideration therefor or acquires ownership thereof in an original manner, the project operator's acquisition of the real property constituting the above improvement of base facilities constitutes an acquisition by succession without consideration, and accordingly the operator has the obligation to pay acquisition tax, etc., applying, with respect to the relevant real property, the tax base based on the time of acquisition and the tax rate prescribed in Article 11(1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act.
Factors
- 용도폐지되는 정비기반시설을 국가 등으로부터 무상으로 양도받아 취득한 경우
- 취득 당시를 기준으로 한 무상취득에 따른 과세표준과 구 지방세법 제11조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 세율 등을 적용한 취득세 등을 납부할 의무가 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Where the improvement of base facilities whose use is discontinued is acquired without consideration by transfer from the State, etc.
• Whether there is an obligation to pay acquisition tax, etc. by applying the tax base based on acquisition without consideration as of the time of acquisition and the tax rate prescribed in Article 11(1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2007두6663 판결(공2007하, 1284)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6663 decided July 12, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1284)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2007두6663 판결(공2007하, 1284), 대법원 2014. 2. 21. 선고 2012다82466 판결(공2014상, 673), 대법원 2018. 7. 26. 선고 2015다221569 판결(공2018하, 1823), 대법원 2019. 4. 3. 선고 2017두66824 판결(공2019상, 998)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When only part of an existing road was incorporated and the parcel was subdivided before the transfer, how is the acquisition-date market standard value of the transferred portion determined?
The remand judgment's calculation of the acquisition-date market standard value for each transferred parcel would show how the tax base is fixed in practice. Any amendment to Article 65 of the former Urban and Housing Environment Renewal Act, now Article 97, or to the acquisition-tax rate provisions of the former Local Tax Act would require reading this entry again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When only part of an existing road was incorporated and the parcel was subdivided before the transfer, how is the acquisition-date market standard value of the transferred portion determined?” vs Independent “What precise tax amount remains lawful after applying the correct acquisition-time tax base and rate on remand?”
The primary asks how the value of a transferred portion is fixed after parcel subdivision, while the independent asks for the exact tax amount on remand. These are different unresolved points.
사업시행자가 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제65조 제2항 후단 규정에 따라 용도폐지되는 정비기반시설을 국가 등으로부터 무상으로 양도받아 취득한 경우, 위 정비기반시설을 구성하는 부동산에 관하여 취득 당시를 기준으로 한 무상취득에 따른 과세표준과 구 지방세법 제11조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 세율 등을 적용한 취득세 등을 납부할 의무가 있는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 18 January 2018 (2017Nu48446), treated the plaintiff's acquisition of the facilities whose use was discontinued as a gratuitous original acquisition and applied the rate of twenty-eight thousandths under Article 11(1)(iii) of the former Local Tax Act. It calculated the tax base from the individual publicly announced land price of the parcels as they stood before subdivision, rather than from the value of the facilities as acquired. It also held that Article 74(1) of the former Special Act on Restriction and Limitation of Special Tax Exemptions and Reductions did not exempt the acquisition, because the plaintiff acquired the facilities as the project operator and not as an owner, and the facilities were neither construction-reserved land nor deferred-disposition land.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on how acquisition tax is calculated. Since the operator merely received the discontinued facilities without charge under the latter part of Article 65(2), and had neither contributed separate consideration nor is it to be said that it created the ownership itself, the acquisition was a gratuitous succession; the tax base was the market standard value at the acquisition date and the rate under Article 11(1)(ii) applied. It found no error in the lower court's treatment of the exemption under Article 74(1), reversed the part of the judgment in which the defendant had lost, and remanded that part to the Seoul High Court while dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the operator contributed separate consideration for the facility, or in which its ownership is otherwise regarded as having been created rather than received by transfer.
- Newly installed infrastructure under the first part of Article 65(2), which vests automatically in the state or a local authority rather than being transferred to the operator.
- An acquisition that falls within the exemption under Article 74(1) of the former Special Act because the property is construction-reserved land or deferred-disposition land.
Record verification notes
First separate the newly installed infrastructure under the first part of Article 65(2) from the facilities whose use was discontinued under the latter part, since the former vests in the state or local authority and the latter is transferred to the operator. Then identify the acquisition date and the market standard value of each transferred parcel, checking whether only part of an existing road was incorporated and whether the parcel was subdivided before the transfer. If an exemption is claimed, check whether the property is construction-reserved land or deferred-disposition land, and confirm which versions of the Local Tax Act and the Urban and Housing Environment Renewal Act applied on the relevant dates.
From the official text
Points at issue
사업시행자가 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법 제65조 제2항 후단 규정에 따라 용도폐지되는 정비기반시설을 국가 등으로부터 무상으로 양도받아 취득한 경우, 위 정비기반시설을 구성하는 부동산에 관하여 취득 당시를 기준으로 한 무상취득에 따른 과세표준과 구 지방세법 제11조 제1항 제2호에서 정한 세율 등을 적용한 취득세 등을 납부할 의무가 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a project operator has acquired, without consideration, by transfer from the State, etc., improvement of base facilities whose use is discontinued pursuant to the latter part of Article 65(2) of the former Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, the operator is obligated to pay acquisition tax, etc. by applying, with respect to the real property constituting the above improvement of base facilities, the tax base based on acquisition without consideration as of the time of acquisition and the tax rate prescribed in Article 11(1) 2 of the former Local Tax Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost is reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 지방세법(2016. 12. 27. 법률 제14475호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조 제1호, 제11조 제1항 제2호, 제3호, 제7호 (나)목, 구 도시 및 주거환경정비법(2017. 2. 8. 법률 제14567호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제65조 제2항(현행 제97조 제2항 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger