취득세등부과처분취소
1. The part of additional tax of KRW 691,00, which the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff on April 11, 2013, is KRW 691,00,000, and local education tax.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff was a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and acquired, on December 28, 2010, securitization assets including loan claims of KRW 1,15.5 billion from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (the asset holder) of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City as collateral of 456-8 Emergency Building 101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure for the instant real estate, and received the decision to permit the sale of the instant real estate on September 2, 201, and paid in full the sale price on November 23, 2011.
C. On November 201, 201, the Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax of KRW 2,300,000,000 to the Defendant with the tax base of KRW 100,000,000 as the acquisition tax of the instant real estate, and KRW 2,30,00,000 as the local education tax, and KRW 1,00,00,000 as the special rural development tax.
On April 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the acquisition of the instant real estate does not constitute acquisition tax reduction under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; (b) was amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “new Act”); and (c) did not constitute acquisition tax reduction under Article 120(1)9 of the former Act (Amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”); and (d) imposed acquisition tax of KRW 2,691,00 (including additional tax of KRW 691,00); (c) local education tax of KRW 249,100 (including additional tax of KRW 49,100); and (d) special agricultural and fishing villages tax of KRW 134,50 (including additional tax of KRW 3504,507
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.
1. Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act claiming the reduction or exemption of acquisition tax based on the interpretation of Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act.