부당이득금 반환
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
(d) assessed 51,930 won;
In addition, on April 8, 201, Seocho-gu Office issued a prior notice that the difference between the property tax calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate and the property tax amount already paid is expected to be taxed in May 201 for the reason that the entertainment tavern in this case is deemed to be a high-class recreation center subject to heavy taxation from July 2007, and issued a tax disposition to the Defendants on May 9, 201.
E. As above, the Defendants informed the Plaintiff that Seocho-gu Office had either acquired or disposed of the acquisition tax and property tax, and notified the Plaintiff on March 31, 201 with respect to the acquisition tax, the Plaintiff’s KRW 60,000,000, in relation to the acquisition tax.
5.2. 22,207,720 won paid in excess of KRW 82,207,720, and paid in excess of KRW 82,207,720. The heavy property tax received from the Plaintiff and paid in May 31, 2011.
[Grounds for recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers), and the results of the fact-finding conducted by the head of Seocho-gu, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the head of Seocho-gu, * Article 112 of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010) and Article 84-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2010), the standard tax rate of acquisition tax is 2% of the acquired value of the article, entertainment bar, the area of business including the area of public entertainment facility exceeds 100 square meters, the area of business of a separate and semi-permanent partitioned guest room exceeds 50% of the exclusive use area, or the number of guest rooms is at least five percent of the above general tax rate of 5000.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. Of the acquisition tax borne by the Plaintiff, the portion of the acquisition tax imposed by the Plaintiff was imposed by F as it donated the Defendants’ property, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s business tax, and thus, it should be borne by the Defendants. As such, the Defendants were unjust.