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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a “ACC golf course” (hereinafter “instant golf course”), which is a membership golf course, in the 00-0 class OO-O-type O-O-O of Gyeonggi-do.

B. The Plaintiff classified the original preserved forest land in the instant golf course owned by it as a general aggregate taxation subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax and reported the comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax to the Defendant pursuant to Article 11 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act and Article 182(1)1 and 2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8864 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”). After that, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant to the effect that the report classified the original preserved forest into general aggregate taxation subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax is unconstitutional and unlawful, and that the refund of comprehensive real estate holding tax should be made based on the law and regulations, but the Defendant rejected each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed against each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed. The specific details are as follows.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The assertion that the law was based on unconstitutional

Each disposition of this case is unlawful as it is based on the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act and Article 182(1) of the former Local Tax Act, which is unconstitutional as follows.

1) The Gross Real Estate Tax Act infringes on the essential contents of property rights and constitutes property tax, transfer income tax and double taxation, and is unconstitutional in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition and equality.

2) Article 182(1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that taxable objects shall be classified into general aggregate taxation, special aggregate taxation, and separate taxation. Article 182(1)1 provides that "land excluding the land subject to general aggregate taxation, which is subject to separate taxation," and subparagraph 2 provides that "land attached to a building prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is owned by a person liable to pay tax as of the date of taxation, and land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, as being subject to separate taxation, shall be subject to separate taxation." Of the above provision, Article 182(1) of the former Local Tax Act comprehensively delegates its contents to subordinate statutes even though it is a provision concerning the important contents of general aggregate taxation and general aggregate taxation, which is contrary to the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation.

B. The assertion that the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is unconstitutional or unlawful

Each disposition of this case is unlawful since it was based on the unconstitutionality or illegal enforcement decree as follows.

1) Violation of the principle of equality

Article 131-2 (3) 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19817 of Dec. 30, 2006, and amended by Presidential Decree No. 20887 of Jun. 25, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act") provides that forests within land for public golf course shall be excluded from special aggregate taxation, and forests within land for public golf course shall be excluded from special aggregate taxation. The above provision deals differently with land for public golf course and forests within land for public golf course with rational reasons, and treat them differently from land for sports facility where the original preservation of public golf course is different from land for public golf course, and (2) treat them differently from “a simple forest connected to a golf course” of the same nature, and thus, it violates the principle of equality under the Constitution.

2) Infringement of freedom of occupation selection

The heavy taxation on the forest land preserved in its original form on the membership golf course under the above Enforcement Decree violates the freedom of occupation by making it virtually difficult to open and operate the golf course because it has a decisive influence on the profit or loss of the golf course.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion that the statute was based on the unconstitutionality

1) First, we examine the argument that the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act itself is unconstitutional, such as infringing on the essential contents of property rights or prescribing the taxation of unrealized profits.

The imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax itself, such as property tax imposed on the owner of assets, is deemed justifiable under the Constitution. However, the basis and scope of imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax and its limit are merely problematic. Comprehensive real estate holding tax is not a collection of all real estate value within a short period of time, but a system for deducting property tax is being installed on comprehensive real estate holding tax and tax standards. In full view of the fact that comprehensive real estate holding tax and its taxation rate, the provision on comprehensive real estate holding tax does not violate the essential contents of property rights or violates the excessive prohibition or equality principle (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2006Hun-Ba12, Nov. 13, 2008; 2007Hun-Ba71, 88, 94, 2008Hun-Ba3, 208Hun-Ba3, 2008Hun-Ba12, 208Hun-Ba, and 2008Hun-Ga12, supra, it cannot be deemed that the taxation purpose of comprehensive real estate holding tax is not inconsistent with the legislative purpose of taxation.

2) Next, the argument that the provision of this case violates the principle of no taxation without representation and the principle of no taxation without representation is unconstitutional. The principle of no taxation without representation, which is stipulated in Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution, is the core content of the legal requirement and the principle of no taxation without representation and the principle of no taxation without representation, thereby guaranteeing the people’s property rights and at the same time ensuring the legal stability and predictability for the economic life of the people. However, while observing the principle of no taxation without representation, detailed matters that need to be followed by changes in economic reality or the development of professional technology need to be delegated to an administrative legislation with scarcity than the formal law enacted by the National Assembly. Separate cumulative taxation stipulated in Article 182 of the former Local Tax Act is a system to correct unreasonable outcomes coming from the uniform application of comprehensive taxation, and thus should be applied to normal economic activities as a common appearance of the land subject to taxation. However, economic activities are complicated and complicated, and there is no need to consider the technical relevance between the Plaintiff and the pertinent land subject to no taxation without representation in the relevant laws.

B. Determination on the assertion that the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is unconstitutional or unlawful

1) First, unlike forest land for public golf course, the argument that the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, excluding forest land for public golf course from land for separate taxation, violate the principle of equality. Article 182(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19817, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act"), which set the scope of land for separate taxation pursuant to Article 131-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, provides that land for public golf course under Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be subject to separate taxation by 10 as one of the "land prescribed by the Presidential Decree" and is not subject to separate taxation by 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act for land for which the public sports facility business operator under the Act on the Establishment and Utilization of Sports Facilities should install under Article 20 of the Local Tax Act for separate taxation for public golf course or forest land for membership.

2) In addition, Article 131-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment goes against the principle of equality. As seen earlier, Article 131-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment excludes both forest land within a membership golf course and forest land within a public golf course. The said provision does not differentiate between forest land within a membership golf course and forest within a public golf course’s land. Furthermore, in light of national land characteristics, it is difficult to form a membership golf course without damaging a mountainous district and a forest within a public golf course’s land due to the lack of land size compared to the nature of a membership golf course whose use is restricted to the general public, and the creation of a membership golf course is not possible unless it damages a considerable portion of a mountainous district and a forest. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the forest within a membership golf course under Article 132-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act did not prescribe the land subject to separate taxation as land.

3) Article 131-2(3)14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act applies to the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2007 for which the Plaintiff requested correction. Since the above provision generally does not specify the forest land for membership golf courses as the land for membership golf courses in consideration of the characteristics of the forest land for membership golf courses, which is opened only to members, in general, taking into account the characteristics of the forest land for membership golf courses, the forest land for membership golf courses in the land for membership golf courses cannot be deemed as discrimination without reasonable grounds.

4) Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment that does not specify the forest land of this case as separate taxation subject to separate taxation

Article 131-2(3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 131-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, after the amendment, shall be deemed to infringe on the freedom of occupation choice. Even if the above provisions do not specify forests and fields within the land used for membership golf courses as land subject to separate aggregate taxation, and thus, the burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax on preserved forest land in original form of golf courses is high, the issue of whether to operate golf courses is ultimately a matter of economic choice, and the comprehensive real estate holding tax itself does not directly or practically prohibit the operation of golf courses. The above provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act cannot be deemed to infringe on the freedom of occupation (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 96Hun-Ba64, Feb. 25, 199)

The above assertion made by the Plaintiff is without merit.

5. Conclusion

The first instance judgment is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.