취득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who has been engaged in the processing and manufacturing of parts relating to semiconductors under the trade name “B” from April 6, 2006.
B. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired a building of 4,514.43 square meters on the land above the ground on March 5, 2013, and newly constructed a building of 4,514.43 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the said land on March 5, 2013.
C. The Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired by a person who seeks to construct industrial buildings, etc. within an industrial complex under the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same).
On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff invested the instant real estate in kind in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”) and acquired 2,420,000 shares (10%) from the said corporation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said corporation on the same day.
(hereinafter “instant investment in kind”) e.
On May 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of 161,664,930 won, local education tax of 11,228,780 won, special rural development tax of 9,124,460 won, on the ground that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate for not less than two years from the date of its use without directly using it for the pertinent purpose.
(f) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 22, 2016, but was dismissed on February 27, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if there are additional numbers, referring to the issuance of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The key issue of the instant case is the case where the Plaintiff acquired real estate in an industrial complex and thereafter used it directly for less than two years, and the said real estate was invested in kind for the purpose of corporate conversion.