취득세등경정청구거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, as a person who intends to construct industrial buildings, etc. within an industrial complex under the last sentence of Article 78(4) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014) by acquiring KRW 39,794,759,100,000, 179 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”).
On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Switzerland SPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SPS”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale to SPPS on June 1, 2015.
Therefore, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay the acquisition tax of KRW 1,591,761,60, and the local education tax of KRW 159,176,160, and KRW 1,750,737, and 760, which was exempted from the damage under Article 78(5) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, by deeming that the Plaintiff sold the instant land under the condition that the period for direct use for the pertinent purpose is less than two years, and the Plaintiff paid it on June 12, 2015.
On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the amount of additional tax at zero won on the grounds that the Plaintiff had a substantial ownership of the instant land prior to the instant sales contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant sales contract was sold. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the instant sales contract constituted the sale subject to additional collection.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Switzerland SPS is an oligopolistic shareholder holding 1,215,277 shares of the Plaintiff’s 2,022,078 shares, which is 60.12% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff, from the time when it acquired the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff.