초록 열기/닫기 버튼
대법원판례에 의하면, 매수인이 부동산에 관한 매매계약을 체결하고 소유권이전등기에 앞서 매매대금을 모두 지급한 경우 사실상의 잔금지급일에 구 지방세법 제105조 제2항에서 규정한 ‘사실상 취득’에 따른 취득세 납세의무가 성립하고, 그 후 그 사실상의 취득자가 그 부동산에 관하여 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마치더라도 잔금지급일에 성립한 취득세 납세의무와 별도로 그 등기일에 구 지방세법 제105조 제1항에서 규정한 ‘취득’을 원인으로 한 새로운 취득세 납세의무가 성립하는 것은 아니다. 대상판결에서는 부동산을 매수하고 매매대금을 모두 지급한 매수인이 3자간 등기명의신탁 약정에 따라 명의수탁자 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다가 그 후 해당 부동산에 관하여 자신의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 경우에도 이러한 판례 법리가 그대로 적용되는지가 문제 되었다. 이에 관하여 대상판결의 다수의견은 3자간 등기명의신탁에서 명의신탁자의 매수인으로서의 지위는 일반 매매계약에서의 매수인 지위와 근본적으로 다르지 않고, 명의신탁자에게 구 지방세법 제105조 제2항이 적용되지 않는다고 볼 만한 법적 근거도 없으며, 명의신탁자가 부동산을 사실상 취득한 이후 명의수탁자 명의로 그 등기를 마쳤더라도 이는 취득세 납세의무가 성립한 이후에 발생한 사정에 불과하고, 부동산실명법에 의하여 명의신탁약정과 그에 따른 명의수탁자 명의의 등기는 무효라는 등의 이유로 이를 긍정하였다. 이에 대하여 대상판결의 반대의견은 취득세의 유통세로서의 성격, 신탁부동산을 사실상 유효하게 처분할 수 있는 명의수탁자의 지위 및 일반 국민들의 납세의식과 조세 행정의 효율성 등에 비추어 3자간 등기명의신탁에서는 위 판례 법리와는 달리 명의수탁자와 명의신탁자 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 할 때에 각 등기의 명의자에게 취득세 납세의무가 성립한다고 보았다. 대상판결은 3자간 등기명의신탁에서 명의신탁자의 취득세 납세의무의 성립 시기에 관한 기존 대법원의 입장을 다시 한 번 확인하고 그 근거를 한결 명확하게 제시하였다는 데에 의의가 있다. 나아가 대상판결은 정치하고도 치열한 논증을 통해 해당 쟁점의 해결을 넘어 명의수탁자에 대한 취득세 납세의무의 성립 여부 등 3자간 등기명의신탁을 둘러싼 취득세 법률관계 전반에 관한 대법원의 견해를 제시하였다고 평가할 수 있다. 비록 대상판결이 기존 판례를 변경하거나 새로운 법리를 설시한 것은 아니지만, 이러한 점에서 그 의미가 결코 작다고 할 수 없다.
According to the Majority Opinion of the subject case: (i) acquisition tax shall be imposed on a person who has “practically acquired” real estate as stipulated by Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act where said person (real estate purchaser) concludes a sales agreement and pays the total acquisition price prior to completing the registration of ownership transfer; and (ii) even if the same purchaser thereafter completed the registration of ownership transfer upon the transaction of the real estate in question, this merely constitutes one of the perfunctory requirements for acquisition of ownership of real estate that was practically acquired on the outstanding payment date, and therefore, the purchaser cannot be deemed separately liable for acquisition tax on the registration date due to having constituted “acquisition” as stipulated by Article 105(1) of the former Local Tax Act. The key issue of the instant case was whether the foregoing legal doctrine holds true in cases where a purchaser, who paid the total acquisition price of the real estate that was practically acquired, completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee based on a three-party registered title agreement and thereafter completed the registration of ownership transfer of the same under the purchaser’s own name. In regards to this issue, the Majority Opinion stated that “[A] title truster’s status as a buyer in a three-party registered title trust is not very different from a buyer’s status in a general sales agreement. Moreover, no legal basis exists to deem that Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act is inapplicable toward a title truster in a three-party registered title trust [...] Even in cases where a title truster completed registration of ownership transfer under the name of a title trustee (rather than the truster’s own name) following the practical acquisition of real estate, this merely occurred after the establishment of acquisition tax liability. Furthermore, the title trust agreement and the registration under the title trustee’s name based thereon are deemed ineffective pursuant to Article 4(1)-(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Accordingly, the title truster’s tax liability that had been established on the ground of completing registration of ownership transfer under the title trustee’s name cannot be deemed as having either retroactively extinguished or having become null and void.” However, as regards the instant three-party registered title trust, the Dissenting Justices opined that “[If] ownership of real estate was transferred from a previous owner to a title trustee, the issue is whether a title truster may be held liable for acquisition tax on the outstanding payment date due to constituting practical acquisition, albeit registration was completed under the title trustee’s name and the acquisition tax arising therefrom was paid. We dissent with the Majority that deemed the title truster liable in view of the featured characteristics of acquisition tax as a transfer tax; amendment history of the Local Tax Act; status of a title trustee in a three-party registered title trust; applicable scope of Article 105(2) of the former Local Tax Act; awareness level of tax liability among the general public; and efficiency of tax administration.” Neither the existing precedent was overruled nor novel legal doctrines were presented in Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Du43110, supra. Nonetheless, the subject case is significant in that it reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s stance as to the timing of establishment of acquisition tax liability of a title truster in a three-party registered title trust agreement by presenting a more clear rationale. In addition, through overcoming political scrutiny over controversial aspects of the case, the Supreme Court was able to establish its position on the overall legal relationship regarding acquisition tax in a three-party registered title trust.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
three-party registered title trust, title trust, acquisition tax, transfer tax, registration tax, acquisition, practical acquisition, outstanding payment, registration, acquisition of ownership doctrine, substance doctrine, form doctrine, acquisition of substantial value doctrine, Local Tax Act, Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name
