2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On November 17, 2009, the Defendant imposed and collected comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the Plaintiff in 2009. The Plaintiff discovered errors in the notice of imposition and collection, and reported the amount of comprehensive real estate tax as OO won and special rural development tax as OO won in accordance with Article 16(3) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act on December 7, 2009.

B. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff paid either OO of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax and OO of the special rural development tax, and OO of the secondary real estate holding tax and special rural development tax on February 16, 2010, respectively.

C. Since June 25, 2012, the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2009 was reduced to OO won, and the amount of special rural development tax was reduced to OO won, and OO won.

D. The Defendant calculated the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax in accordance with Article 9(3), 14(3) and (6) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Act") in calculating the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, and thereafter, maintained the same contents as to the issue in this case after the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21293, Feb. 4, 2009; therefore, in calculating the amount of the deducted property tax, the Defendant calculated the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in accordance with Article 9(3), 14(3) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9273, Sep. 23, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act").

E. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff determined that there was an error in calculating the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax for the year 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant for reduction of OO members of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and OO members of the special rural development tax. However, on January 24, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction.

F. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal on April 11, 2013, but was dismissed on June 17, 2013.

G. As a result of the Defendant’s correction of reduction after the above rejection disposition, the final final amount of tax finalized is OOwon of comprehensive real estate holding tax and OOwon of special rural development tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of refusal of correction corresponding to the part on which the Plaintiff seeks refund on the premise that the amount of tax corrected above reduction was corrected” as stated in the attached Form 2 calculation statement of 1.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Articles 9(3) and 14(3) and (6) of the amended Act, and Articles 4-2 and 5-3(1) and (2) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that in calculating the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax, the amount of tax imposed as property tax shall be deducted with respect to the portion which is the object of taxation of comprehensive real estate holding tax. However, in calculating the deducted amount of property tax, the Defendant did not deduct only the amount of tax imposed on the portion which is the object of taxation of comprehensive real estate holding tax by again multiplying the amount of property tax (comprehensive real estate holding tax or property tax) by

Therefore, imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax without deducting the amount of property tax partially should be revoked as it violates the principle of no taxation without law or double taxation prohibition.

2) The Ministry of Finance and Economy stated that when imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax on September 3, 2003 through the explanatory materials in the title " how to change the taxation system of real estate holding tax," the total amount of the property tax imposed by the local government is deducted from the total amount of the property tax imposed by the local government, and thus, there was no possibility of unconstitutionality, and only part of the property tax paid by the plaintiffs was deducted through the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful and thus, should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Details and purport of amendment of relevant laws and regulations

A) The Local Tax Act amended by Act No. 7332, Jan. 5, 2005, in order to realize the tax base, provides that the property tax base shall be based on the publicly notified price pursuant to the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, but the property tax base shall be calculated according to the annual application rate of the publicly notified price in order to ease a rapid tax burden following the introduction of a new system. The Gross Real Estate Tax Act enacted by Act No. 7328, Jan. 5, 2005, puts the amount obtained by deducting a certain amount of tax base from such aggregate amount of property tax base as

However, since it was difficult to flexibly adjust the above application rate so that it can be a reasonable level of tax burden because it has been determined to increase the above application rate by step each year, the Local Tax Act amended by Act No. 7843 of Dec. 31, 2005 and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act amended by Act No. 9273 of Dec. 26, 2008 adopted a fair market price ratio system applicable to property tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax to determine the rate to be reflected in a certain tax base within a certain scope in consideration of the real estate market trend, financial conditions, etc. However, Article 5 of the Addenda of the above Local Tax Act adopted a transitional measure on the annual application rate system of property tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax since February 6, 2009.

Accordingly, Article 2-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, which is delegated by Article 8(1) and Article 13(1) and (2), shall be 80/100 of the fair market value ratio of housing, land subject to general aggregate taxation, and land subject to separate aggregate taxation (hereinafter referred to as “house, etc.”), the proviso of Article 2-4 (2) shall be 70/100 of the fair market value ratio of land subject to separate aggregate taxation for the portion for which liability for tax payment is established in 2009, and the fair market value ratio of land subject to separate aggregate taxation for the portion for which liability for tax payment is established in 2010 shall be 76/100, respectively. Article 109 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be 70/100 of the current market value ratio of land and buildings, and Article 1109 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be 60/100 of the current market value ratio (wholly amended by 2000).

B) On the other hand, the purpose of the comprehensive real estate holding tax introduced following the reorganization of the real estate holding tax system on January 5, 2005 is to enhance the equity in taxation burden on real estate holding and to stabilize the price of real estate by first imposing property tax, which is a local tax, at a low rate, on a person who owns real estate in excess of a certain standard amount of taxation by adding all the taxable items in Korea, at a higher rate.

As such, since property tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax are taxes based on the same taxable capacity as the possession of property subject to taxation, the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act enacted by Act No. 7328 on January 5, 2005 requires that the amount of taxes imposed as property tax be deducted from the calculated amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax. Accordingly, Articles 4-2 and 5-3(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21293, Feb. 4, 2009) provide that the amount of deducted property tax shall be calculated in accordance with the formula of "amount equivalent to property tax calculated as the standard tax rate for property tax on the portion exceeding the amount of property tax, such as housing, ± amount equivalent to property tax calculated as the standard tax rate for property tax on the portion of housing, etc. ± amount equivalent to property

After that, on February 4, 2009, Article 4-2, Article 5-3 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21293, which changed the method of calculating the amount of property tax to be deducted by the formula of this case, namely, the total amount of property tax imposed as property tax on housing, etc. 】 the amount equivalent to the property tax calculated as the standard tax rate of property tax on the tax base of housing, etc. ± the amount equivalent to the property tax calculated as the standard tax rate of property tax on housing, etc. ± the amount equivalent to the property tax calculated as the standard tax rate of property tax on housing, etc. ± The purpose of this change is to abolish

C) In light of the developments and purport of the amendment of the provisions related to the Local Tax Act, the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, even though the portion exceeding the standard amount of taxation, such as a house, stated in the molecular in the previous formula in the Enforcement Decree, was changed to the “tax base for a house, etc.” as stated in the molecular in the instant formula in the Enforcement Decree, there is no change in the basic purport of deducting the amount of property tax imposed overlapping with the comprehensive real estate tax for the portion exceeding the standard amount of taxation. Therefore, even if the method of calculating the amount of property tax to be deducted was changed to the instant formula in the previous Enforcement Decree, it cannot be deemed that the purpose of the amendment was to reduce or change the scope of the amount of property tax to be deducted (see, e.g.

(ii)the method of calculating the property tax to be deducted under the amended Enforcement Decree.

The amount of property tax on the portion exceeding the standard amount of taxation of the comprehensive real estate holding tax is calculated based on the formula of "(public notice price - the standard amount of taxation) 】 the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the same portion is calculated based on the formula of "fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax" x "fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax". However, this two amounts refer to the portion on which the property tax and the comprehensive real estate holding tax are imposed respectively for the portion of "public notice price - the standard amount of taxation - the standard amount of taxation," which overlaps each other, i.e., (public notice price - the standard amount of taxation - the fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax x the portion on which the property tax is imposed in duplicate (i.e. the portion of property tax limited to the comprehensive real estate holding tax) x the portion on which the comprehensive real estate holding tax is imposed. In addition, it is unnecessary to consider this portion in calculating the amount of property tax which is deducted on the ground that the comprehensive real estate holding

In full view of these points, the amount of property tax to be deducted according to the formula of the Enforcement Decree of this case x the fair market price ratio of the property tax limited to the fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax x the fair market price ratio of the property tax x the property tax rate. Therefore, in the case of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 209, the fair market price ratio of the property tax x the amount of property tax to be deducted from the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, such as housing x the fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax x the fair market price ratio of the property tax x the property tax rate

Meanwhile, in cases where the Ordinance of the Ministries, such as the Enforcement Rule, prescribed certain matters among the requirements for administrative disposition, according to the delegation of the Ordinance, the provisions of the Ordinance shall be deemed binding for the citizens. However, in cases where the Ordinance of the Ministries amended matters that meet the requirements for disposition prescribed in the statutes without delegation of the Act and subordinate statutes, the provisions of the Ordinance shall be deemed to have the nature of the administrative order applied within the administrative organization, which only provides for the criteria for administrative affairs inside the administrative organization, and shall not have any external binding force on the citizens. Therefore, even if a certain administrative disposition is in violation of the provisions of the Enforcement Rule, etc. with no legal nature, such disposition shall not be deemed unlawful merely because it does not violate the requirements prescribed in the said Rule, and it shall not be deemed legitimate on the ground that it satisfies the requirements prescribed in the said Rule, etc. In this case, the legality of the disposition shall not be determined on the basis of the relevant provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Act binding upon the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court

As seen earlier, the amount of property tax deducted from the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax, such as housing, should be calculated in accordance with the instant Enforcement Decree, and thus, each of the instant dispositions cannot be deemed lawful solely on the ground that it was calculated in accordance with the instant Enforcement Rule

3) Whether the instant disposition is lawful

Therefore, calculating the amount of property tax to be deducted by applying the formula in the amended Enforcement Rule to the disposition of this case is contrary to the purport of the amended Enforcement Rule.

On the other hand, if a reasonable amount of tax is calculated by lawful calculation method, it is apparent that the total amount of the comprehensive real estate tax stated in the column of the "total real estate tax amount" in the attached Form 2 calculation statement and the special tax for rural development accordingly should be the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax to be paid. Therefore, the disposition of this case should be revoked illegally.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.