beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.16 2016구합64358

경정청구거부처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale parts related to the balping, manufacturing and wholesale of bicycle presses, manufacturing and wholesale of non-quality metal products, trade in products related to mixing and non-ferrous metal, etc., and was confirmed as a venture business by the Small and Medium Business Corporation on February 5, 2014 pursuant to Article 25 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses (Amended by Act No. 14122, Mar. 29, 2016).

B. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 6,753,820,820 on the aggregate of B factory site and C factory site (each of the above land was combined with B factory site 7,574 square meters on May 14, 2015; hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 58,046,80, acquisition tax with the tax base of KRW 1,451,170,000 on the same day, and KRW 58,046,80,000, special rural development tax, KRW 2,902,340, local education tax, KRW 5,804,680, total of KRW 66,753,820,00.

C. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for the reduction or exemption of local taxes pursuant to Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land by a small or medium start-up venture enterprise was subject to exemption from acquisition tax. However, on April 6, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with D (hereinafter “D”) to comprehensively take over all tangible and intangible assets related to the bar project from D (hereinafter “D”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land constitutes the same type of business by taking over facilities, machinery, apparatus, patent rights related to the bar project, etc., which cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s request for correction.”