beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2014.11.04 2014구합3182

재산세부과처분취소

Text

1. As to the plaintiff

A. The imposition of property tax of KRW 25,744,380, which was made on September 4, 2013 by Defendant Three-Party Markets, is 23,913.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on August 18, 1983 for the purpose of promoting the convenience of people's lives and contributing to improving public welfare by laying the foundation for a long-term stable supply of gas on a long-term basis; on June 1, 2013, major shareholders as of June 1, 2013 (26.86%) the Government (26.86%) the Korea Electric Power Corporation (24.45%) the Korea Electric Power Corporation); (3.9% in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; 1.22% in Gyeonggi-do; 0.70% in Incheon Metropolitan City; 0.66% in Busan Metropolitan City; 0.59% in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; 0.42% in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; 0.40% in Jeonnam-do; 0.38% in Daejeon Metropolitan City; 0.33% in Gwangju Metropolitan City; 0.26% in Chungcheongnam-do; 0.26% in Chungcheongnam-do; 0.5% in Gangwon-do);

B. In accordance with Article 9 of the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Si Tax in Samyang-si (amended by Ordinance No. 785, Jun. 1, 2012); Defendant Gangseo-si may directly use the Plaintiff’s real estate in accordance with Article 10 of the Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Si Tax in the Dong-si (amended by Ordinance No. 884, Jan. 11, 2012) pursuant to Article 7 of the Gu Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Si Tax in the Dong-si (amended by Ordinance No. 1626, Dec. 16, 2011) and Article 10 of the Seongdong-si Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Si Tax in the Yangyang-si (amended by Ordinance No. 2234, May 11, 2012); Defendant Seosung-si has owned real estate in the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff under the jurisdiction of the Gangwon-do (amended by Ordinance No. 2070, Jun. 27, 2017).

C. After the enforcement of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”), the Defendants were capital of a local government under Article 85-2(3) of the same Act as of June 1, 2013, which is the tax base date by the Plaintiff.