beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.05.12 2014구합68843

취득세부과처분취소청구등

Text

1. The head of the Gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City imposes penalty tax on the Plaintiff as specified in attached Form 1.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that runs a facility leasing business, etc. under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, was located in 10 buildings in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul from the time of its establishment until January 14, 2013.

(hereinafter “the head office of this case”). (b)

From January 5, 2011 to June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired 1,052 vehicles for facility leasing (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). On the corporate register, the Plaintiff completed registration pursuant to the Automobile Management Act with the location of the Incheon Branch, Busan Branch, Daegu Branch, Haban Branch, and Development Branch (hereinafter “each of the instant branches”) as the place of use. As indicated in attached Form 2, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax to the head of Bupyeong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the head of Si/Gun/Gu, the head of Si/Gun/Gu of Daegu Metropolitan City, the head of Si/Gun, the head of Si/Gun, and the head of Si/Gun (hereinafter “Defendant 2 through 6”) with the aggregate of acquisition tax of KRW 2,683,146,890.

C. The head of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the head of the Defendant Jung-gu”) conducted a field investigation on each of the instant branches from August 27, 2012 to August 29, 2012, on the grounds that each of the instant branches does not have human and physical facilities, and thus, it cannot be a place of use under the Automobile Management Act, and the place of payment of acquisition tax of the instant vehicle must be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City having jurisdiction over the instant head office, as shown in attached Table 1, on December 10, 2012, imposed imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 2,683,146,890 and additional tax of KRW 89,959,220 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2013, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that on June 27, 2014, the Tax Tribunal should re-examine the current status of the storage, management, and use of the instant vehicle as of the time of acquisition of the instant vehicle to rectify the tax base

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand.