2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff sold 17.28/162.6 shares (i.e., 57.12 square meters = 537.5 square meters x 17.28/162.6 square meters x 17.5 square meters x 17.28/162.6) in Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul at the auction procedure on December 2, 201, and 32.8/254.5 square meters [23.7 square meters x 32.5 square meters x 32.8/254.55 square meters x 5 square meters x 32.5 square meters x 54.5)] among 535,00,00 won and paid the sales amount in full.

B. The instant housing does not have a separate registration, and its use on the building ledger is a house.

C. On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant, “The tax base is the sales price, and the instant house exceeds KRW 900,000,00,000, applying 50% of the acquisition tax reduction rate.” The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,700,000 for acquisition tax, special rural development tax, KRW 675,00 for rural education tax, and KRW 270,00 for local education tax.”

D. On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) applied 75% of the reduction rate pursuant to Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11138, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”); (b) Articles 3 and 4 subparag. 9 of the Special Rural Development Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1127, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Special Rural Development Tax Act”); and (c) Article 4(4) and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23603, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Special Rural Development Tax Act”) to the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the residential area exceeding 00,000 won is 00,000 won and 00,000,000 won were subject to reduction of the residential area tax.

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 8, 2012, but was dismissed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on May 1, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 2, 3, 4, and Category B 2 and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant housing is in co-ownership relationship, the acquisition tax reduction rate and special rural development tax should be calculated on the basis of only the acquired portion. Since the acquired portion among the instant housing is independently used for residential purposes, and the acquisition value is not more than 900,000,000 won, 75% of the local tax reduction rate should be applied. Moreover, since the exclusive residential area is not more than 85mm2, the special rural development tax is exempt. Accordingly, the instant disposition that was conducted on the premise of the market price and exclusive residential area of the entire housing of this case is unlawful

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the written statements in Gap evidence 7 and 8, Eul evidence 13-1 through 11, Eul evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings in this court's CD verification result, the house of this case is wooden machine and Korean-style house. Among them, the house of this case is installed with a school floor and gate in the form of a third party, centering on Mapo. The house of this case was sold to the non-party 1, etc. in 1954, and the ownership transfer registration has been made in the form of shares. The plaintiff acquired the non-party 2 shares in the house of this case during the auction procedure. The part acquired by the plaintiff has a separate room in which the heating and water-supply system by oil boiler and pots are installed, and there is a separate room for access to the house.

D. Determination

(1) As above, the Plaintiff acquired shares of some of the instant housing units, and the part corresponding to such shares is in the form that can be used independently for sectionally owned co-ownership or for separate residence. In such a case, whether the acquisition tax reduction rate and special rural development tax can be calculated on the basis of only the part acquired.

(2) Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “A house under subparagraph 1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be imposed according to the current status when acquiring the relevant object.” Article 112 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “A house under subparagraph 1(c) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall be deemed as one house.” In such cases, land annexed thereto shall be deemed as land annexed to one unit, divided by the ratio of the size of the building.” However, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “A house shall be deemed as land annexed to one unit,” and Article 112 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “The rate of reduction or exemption of acquisition tax shall not be applicable.” Article 40-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “A house shall be calculated based on a house, but is not based on part of the house, such as the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.” Article 12 of the Local Tax Act provides that one house shall be strictly interpreted based on the ownership or the current status of use.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the market price and exclusive residential area of the entire housing of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Cho Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun