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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 5% interest per annum from April 26, 2013 to the date of the instant judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

A. Status of the parties and the content of the relevant laws and regulations

1) The Plaintiff is a company whose principal business purpose is building management service business, apartment house management business, real estate industry (sale, lease, parking), etc. The Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the subject to the ownership of acquisition tax, registration tax, and local education tax under the Local Tax Act, and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the subject to the ownership of special rural development tax under the Framework

2) The content of the legislation relating to the instant case is as follows.

* Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Ordinance No. 4652 of July 30, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "Gu Ordinance on Tax Reduction and Exemption")

(1) Any real estate acquired by a person who intends to promote a market improvement project under the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts to use directly for the relevant project shall be exempted from the acquisition tax, and any registration thereof shall be exempted from the registration tax, if such real estate is made within two months from the date of acquisition: Provided, That where the approval for the project promotion plan is revoked pursuant to Article 38 of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts within three years from the date of acquisition without justifiable grounds, or where such real estate is not used directly for the relevant project or sold for other purposes without justifiable grounds, and where such real estate

* The Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts (amended by Act No. 9159 of Dec. 19, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on Traditional Markets").

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "permanent market" means any of the following places, the commercial infrastructure of which needs to be improved, repaired, or maintained because it has become worn-out or any other place in need of improvement of management and promotion of modernization of commercial transactions as it is weak to distribute functions:

(a) A market registered as a superstore under Article 8 of the Distribution Industry Development Act (hereinafter referred to as a "registered market");

6. The term “market improvement project executor” means all acts by which a market improvement project executor under Article 41 maintains commercial infrastructure and infrastructure for improvement under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and constructs buildings which include superstores under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Distribution Industry Development Act in order to promote the modernization of markets under the conditions as prescribed by this Act and the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

Article 31 (Markets Eligible for Marketplace Improvement Project) (1) Any market improvement project shall be designated as a conventional market and a zone subject to market improvement project or a zone subject to market improvement project pursuant to Article 6 of the previous Act on Special Measures for Supporting the Structural Improvement and Managerial Stabilization of Small and Medium Enterprises (referring to the Act repealed by Act No. 639), Article 12 of the previous Act on Special Measures for the Structural Improvement of Small and Medium Enterprises and Vitalization of Traditional Markets (referring to the Act repealed by Act No. 7235) or Article 18 of the previous Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets (referring to the Act before wholly amended by Act No. 79

(2) A market for which a market improvement project is to be implemented pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be one of the following: Provided, That in cases of an recognized market, the area of state-owned or public land (excluding roads and rivers; hereafter the same shall apply in Articles 41 and 47) within a market improvement project zone shall be at least one half of the total area of the land:

1. A market which has a defect or loss of competitiveness in the safety of facilities due to the deterioration of commercial infrastructure;

2. The function of the market as the commercial infrastructure is damaged by fire, flood, typhoon, heavy snow, or any other natural disaster;

A market which is unable to be performed normally or unable to recover its function by repair or maintenance;

3. Other markets deemed necessary by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu for the revitalization of business districts or for urban development.

Article 33 (Establishment of Marketplace Improvement Project Promotion Plan) (1) Any person who intends to obtain approval for a market improvement project promotion plan shall establish a market improvement project promotion plan (hereinafter referred to as a "project promotion plan") including the following matters and apply for recommendation for approval for the project promotion plan to the head of a Si

1. Scope of the market improvement zone;

2. Necessity for the marketplace improvement project;

3. Necessary measures to be taken with respect to the following matters:

(a) Determination or modified determination of the urban planning facilities in the urban management planning under the provisions of subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

(b) Determination or determination for modification of the district unit planning pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 5 of Article 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act;

(c) Alteration of a specific-use area to the areas prescribed by Presidential Decree within the limit of a residential and industrial area under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

4. Measures for the protection of shop occupants under the provisions of Article 49 (1) and (6); and

5. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for the examination of the project promotion plan.

B. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of real estate and reporting and payment of the registration tax

1) On July 19, 1989, the non-party BB development corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "B development") obtained the permission for market establishment from the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Guro-gu head") under Article 6 of the Do and the Retail Trade Promotion Act (hereinafter referred to as the "B market"), each real estate listed in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the attached list is the ground buildings (2 Dongs) of the BB market, and the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list is the site thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate listed in the attached list"). Since the Do and the retail Trade Promotion Act was abolished, the BB market was registered as a large store under Article 8 of the Distribution Industry Development Act.

2) On December 14, 2007, between BB development and gambling photographs, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff to purchase the instant real estate owned by BB development and gambling photographs from BB development and gambling photographs to the OOO (land OOO, two above ground buildings). On April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on the ground of the above sales contract.

3) As above, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant real estate, and reported and paid OOO as a sum of the registration tax and local education tax on April 30, 2008, and OOOO as a sum of the acquisition tax and special rural development tax on May 28, 2008, respectively. The details thereof are as follows (hereinafter referred to as 'this case').

Acquired Articles

Land:

Buildings

Total tax amount by tax item;

Tax amount payable

Registration tax;

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Local Education Tax

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Acquisition tax;

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Special rural development tax

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

Total tax amount by article;

OOOE

OOOE

Total tax amount

OOOE

OOOE

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not state any application for reduction or exemption on the basis of the former Ordinance on Reduction or Exemption of Tax Amount at the time of filing the instant report, and there was no separate application for reduction or exemption with the tax authority before paying the pertinent tax amount.

C. Progress of the subsequent case

1) On May 12, 2008, the Plaintiff asked the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Guro-gu Office") and the local economy of Guro-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "Guro-gu Office"), as to whether BB market falls under conventional markets and shopping districts under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets (the current legal name is the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on Traditional Markets"), and on June 12, 2008, the Guro-gu Office asked the Plaintiff on the basis of the results of questioning with the Small and Medium Business Administration that BB market falls under the so-called registered market among conventional markets under Article 2 (1)

2) From the mid-2008 Police Officer, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the shop occupants of the BB market that had possessed the instant real estate at the time, or succeeded to the extradition lawsuit that had been in progress before BB development, and began to receive the instant real estate from the shop occupants, and was handed over 217 stores from the 264 stores of the instant real estate until July 16, 2009.

3) On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff received an application for a market improvement project for BB shopping center (OO-dong 50-481 parcel urban planning facilities (market abolition)) from the regional economy and the Guro-gu Office, but withdrawn the said application on December 8, 2009. The Plaintiff asked on December 17, 2009 whether it is possible to open a temporary market as one of the measures for the protection of shop occupants in the implementation of the market improvement project on the instant real estate in the regional economy and the Guro-gu Office. However, on December 24, 2009, the Guro-gu Office responded to the effect that the establishment of a temporary market is impossible for the Plaintiff on December 24, 2009.

4) On July 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) partially remodeled the instant ground building among the instant real estate and leased it to a new lessee who is not the former shop occupants; and (b) thereby, (c) obtained a total of OO members’ rent income by March 201.

5) On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) between the pre-existing shop occupants in the BB market on October 1, 2010 and the pre-existing shop occupants, the Plaintiff shall pay a total of KRW 2 billion for business losses and resettlement compensation to the shop occupants; (b) the first-lane OOO members shall be paid up to December 31, 201, and the second-lane OO members shall be paid up to March 31, 201; and (c) instead, the said shop occupants agreed to the Plaintiff’s construction on the instant real estate site and the commencement of the re-building or remodeling project under the Special Act on Traditional Markets and agreed to suspend the Plaintiff’s business.

6) On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for recommendation on the approval of the market improvement project plan in the instant real estate to the head of the Guro-gu Office based on Article 33(1) of the Special Act on Traditional Markets. On January 4, 2011, the Plaintiff withdrawn the recommendation, and thereafter filed the second application on January 14, 201. On this issue, the head of Guro-gu urged the Plaintiff to supplement evidence as to whether the payment of compensation was properly implemented under the agreement on February 21, 201 between the Plaintiff and the occupant of the instant real estate and the countermeasures against the civil petition filed by the owner of the building adjacent to the instant real estate.

7) On April 11, 201, the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of the instant tax revenue and registration with the purport that, due to the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s financial situation, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the agreement made on October 1, 2010 with the occupant-merchants at the time of acquiring the instant real estate. However, on April 13, 2011, the Guro-gu Office imposed the Plaintiff on the ground that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate is an acquisition for direct use in the market improvement project, and that it is impossible to refund the instant tax revenue and registration for the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate was impossible due to the lack of approval for the project promotion plan as of the date three years have elapsed since the grace period was expired. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suspended the agreement on the payment of additional dues between the occupant-merchants on April 13, 2011 and the Plaintiff’s management and operation under the agreement made on October 1, 2010.

8) On May 31, 201, the head of Guro-gu filed an application with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City for approval of the market improvement project plan for the real estate in this case, and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City approved the market improvement project plan for the real estate in this case on December 14, 201 after deliberation by the market improvement project deliberation committee. Accordingly, on December 14, 201, the Plaintiff asked the Seoul Special Metropolitan City about whether to refund the registration tax in this case. On December 21, 2011, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City cannot be confirmed as to whether the Plaintiff had the purpose of promoting the market improvement project at the time of acquisition by applying for reduction and exemption on April 11, 2011, not at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the real estate in this case, and it is impossible to refund the real estate in this case within a three-year grace period, as there is no justifiable reason

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-4 (including provisional number), Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-9 (including provisional number), Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 13-1, Gap evidence 15-2-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 18-1, Eul evidence 18-2, Eul evidence 1, 2-2, and 2, the results of the fact inquiry to the chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the purport of the whole pleadings, the whole arguments

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate to use directly for the pertinent business to promote a market improvement project pursuant to the Special Act on Traditional Markets, the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Market Price was applied, and thus, the Guro-gu Office, etc. notified that it is not exempted from tax, etc., to voluntarily report and pay the pertinent tax and registration tax in order to avoid disadvantages such as additional tax, etc. In order to avoid disadvantages such as additional tax, etc., this is significant and apparent that the Plaintiff’s voluntary report of collection and registration tax in the instant case is null and void as a matter of course. Therefore, the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the subject to the ownership of acquisition tax, registration tax, and local education tax, is obligated to return the total amount of the pertinent tax items to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2) Although the Plaintiff did not use the instant real estate in the market improvement project within the three-year period, there are justifiable grounds for using it for other purposes, it does not constitute subject to collection of tax exempted under the proviso to Article 24 of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Market Price.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

1) Since it is unclear whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate to use directly for the pertinent business to promote the market improvement project, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate does not constitute those subject to exemption from the registration tax pursuant to the old Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Market

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate is subject to exemption from the registration tax pursuant to the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of the Market Price, it is difficult to deem that there is an obvious defect in the Plaintiff’s filing, voluntary report and payment of the pertinent tax.

3) Even if the Plaintiff’s voluntary declaration and payment of the Plaintiff’s instant registration tax are significant and apparent defects, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate and did not directly use it in the market improvement project within three years after acquiring the instant real estate without justifiable grounds, and is subject to collection of the registration tax exempted under the proviso to Article 24 of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Market Price, and thus, it does not constitute unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate for a market improvement project

1) First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate for the purpose of promoting the marketplace improvement project pursuant to the Special Act on the Traditional Market, but the following circumstances, namely, ① from the time of acquiring the instant real estate on December 30, 2010 to the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the first time, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of the marketplace improvement project pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Special Act on the Traditional Market, which had been registered with the head of Guro-gu Office for the first time on December 1, 2009 (the Plaintiff first filed an application for the marketplace improvement project but the Guro Office rejected the application for the reduction or exemption of rent for the first time on the following reasons: (a) it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate for the first time after the fact that it was difficult to find that the Plaintiff had acquired the instant real estate for the first time on the condition that it was difficult to use the real estate for the first time after the fact that the Plaintiff had been registered with the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the first time on sale.

2) In addition, even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in order to use it directly for the pertinent business to promote the market improvement project, it is merely a case where the Plaintiff used it for lease profit as seen earlier rather than actually using it for the market improvement project after the acquisition of the instant real estate for about three years, and thus, it constitutes “the case where it is used for other purposes” under the proviso of Article 24 of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Market Price.

B. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s voluntary report on the establishment and registration of the instant case is void as a matter of course

1) As seen earlier, in light of the Plaintiff’s purpose of acquiring the instant real estate and the actual use status, there is no serious defect in the Plaintiff’s voluntary report of the instant disposition and registration tax.

2) In addition, as taxation by the method of filing a return, the tax liability is, in principle, determined by the taxpayer’s own determination of tax base and amount of tax, and the local government holds the tax amount paid on the basis of the established tax claim. Thus, insofar as there are significant and apparent defects in the taxpayer’s filing act, it cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment unless it is void as a matter of course. Whether the act of filing a return constitutes void as a matter of course due to significant and apparent defects, should be considered as the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy for the act of filing a return, and should be determined reasonably by individually grasping the specific circumstances leading to the act of filing a return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da3807, Apr. 12, 196). ① Even if the Plaintiff paid the pertinent real estate to Guro-gu Office or the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the acquisition of the pertinent real estate, the Plaintiff’s filing of an application for reduction or exemption under the former Ordinance for the Acquisition of Real Estate under Article 10 of the Ordinance for the Acquisition of Real Estate or other Real Estate.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the existence of a significant and obvious defect in the report of this case, is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder of the issue.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.