취득세경정청구거부처분취소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on May 2, 2018 shall be revoked.
3...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 400 square meters of land for a factory (hereinafter “instant land”).
On the same day, the Plaintiff paid acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act and special rural development tax under the Act on Special Rural Development and Development Tax. Specifically, the Plaintiff paid acquisition tax of KRW 17,424,00 with tax base of KRW 435,60,000, local education tax of KRW 1,742,400, and special rural development tax of KRW 871,200.
B. After paying the tax as above, the Plaintiff asserted that “the instant land constitutes a business property acquired by a small or medium start-up enterprise and thus ought to be reduced pursuant to Article 58-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 16041, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”). On the same day, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to determine or rectify the tax base and tax amount pursuant to Article 50(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes.
On May 2, 2018, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff on May 2, 2018 that “the Plaintiff was unable to start a new business, such as the addition of another type of business,” and that the Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the rectification of the amount of tax would not be possible, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s business was commenced after its business registration was registered as service business on January 12, 2015; and (b) the addition of the manufacturing business of the electrical and electronic board to its business registration on October 15, 2015, does not constitute a case where it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to start a new business for the first time due to the addition of the type of business.”
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 2, and Eul.