[취득세등부과처분취소][미간행]
Cheongsong Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Agu Gun (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
October 22, 2008
Suwon District Court Decision 2007Guhap2369 Decided May 20, 2008
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 934,423,770, and special rural development tax of KRW 79,457,790, and acquisition tax of KRW 5,413,908,684, and special rural development tax of KRW 541,390,867, which the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant on July 31, 2004, and the acquisition tax of KRW 3,564,273,724, and special rural development tax of KRW 356,427,377, respectively, shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The part exceeding the acquisition tax of 5,413,908,684 won, and the special rural development tax of 541,390,867 won, which the plaintiff reported and paid to the defendant on July 31, 2004, exceeds 3,564,273,724 won, and special rural development tax of 356,427,377 won, shall be revoked.
Defendant: The part against Defendant in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the corresponding part is dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court's explanation of the first instance court's judgment "in the first instance court's first instance court's second 90-2, "in the first instance court's second 90-2," "in the second 4th h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h, "the first land of this case"; and (b) "in the second h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case, which was reported and paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on July 31, 2004, is unlawful as the part of the claim for partial revocation of acquisition tax of 5,413,908,684 won and special rural development tax of 541,390,867 won, is dismissed. The part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of 934,423,70 won and special rural development tax of 79,457,790 won, which the defendant filed on June 10, 2005 with the plaintiff on June 10, 2005, shall be accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and therefore, all appeals filed by the plaintiff
Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)