재산세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 28, 1988, the Plaintiff was registered as a traditional temple under the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation and Support Act (hereinafter “Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act”).
B. From around 1948, the Plaintiff owned the land B and 67 pieces (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).
C. The Defendant did not exempt the Plaintiff from property tax on each of the instant land, on September 5, 2014, by deeming that “each of the instant land does not fall under the category of land within a temple or traditional temple preservation area, and does not fall under the category of property tax exemption pursuant to the proviso to Article 50(5) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.” Moreover, the Defendant imposed and collected the amount of KRW 21,695,890, local education tax, and KRW 4,39,170 on the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff
C. On December 10, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 27, 2015.
E. On January 8, 2016, the Defendant imposed and collected property tax of 19,618,950 won for property tax of 2011 and local education tax of 3,923,790 won, property tax of 20,648,360 won for property tax of 2012, and local education tax of 4,129,670 won, property tax of 20,857,960 won for property tax of 2013, and local education tax of 4,171,590 won for local education tax.
Each disposition on imposition of property tax below and the above
C. The disposition of this case in total, including property tax belonging to the year 2014, is “the disposition of this case”
(i) [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.
1) A) Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the former Traditional Temples Preservation and Support Act (amended by Act No. 11317, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Traditional Temples Preservation Act”) does not mean either within the boundaries of a traditional temple or only the land that is directly adjacent to the boundary of a traditional temple, but rather the geographical relation with a traditional temple.