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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the Plaintiff on November 16, 2011 is revoked, and each imposition of such tax is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a medical foundation established for the purpose of the health business on December 12, 1992, and OO also owns a total of 46,499.0 square meters of 00 square meters of O-ri O-ri 303-8 and 3,000 square meters of O-dong 300-2 and O-si 39,190.5 square meters of 149,000 square meters of 39 square meters of O-dong 300-2 and 39 square meters of O-dong (hereinafter “the instant land 2”).

B. In around 200, the Plaintiff started the construction of a new hospital, which is a medical facility on the ground of the instant land No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the first construction”). Around 1994, the Plaintiff started the construction of a new hospital, which is a medical facility on the ground of the instant land No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the second construction”). However, the Plaintiff did not complete the construction up to now.

C. In the case of the instant construction project, the construction cost of the KRW OOO was invested from June 2008 to June 2010, but there was no separate process in addition to the management work for the portion already implemented, such as the adjustment of materials and the arrangement of military units. In the case of the instant construction project, the construction cost of the KRW OOO was invested from 1994 to 2000, but the construction cost was not invested from 2001 to 2010.

D. The high-level Gun and Duducheon City, which have jurisdiction over each of the instant lands, deemed each of the instant lands as land directly used for medical services and exempted property tax during that period. However, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had discontinued each of the instant construction works for a long period, they were re-classified into the land subject to general aggregate taxation and imposed OOOO of the property tax belonging to 2009 and OOO of the property tax belonging to 2010, and the Duducheon City imposed OO of the property tax belonging to 2007 to 2010 (hereinafter “the instant related disposition”).

E. On November 16, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the data on the instant disposition, and imposed the Plaintiff a comprehensive real estate holding tax OOO or an OOO or a special rural development tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but the said petition was dismissed on June 14, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The head of Si/Gun/ Dong Gun and Dong Do Do 2 were occasionally imposed dispositions on each of the instant land. The case where the property tax was mistakenly exempted does not constitute a ground for occasional imposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful as long as the instant disposition is unlawful. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Article 230 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the scope of direct use in the application of the property tax reduction provision on land under Chapter 5 of the Act shall include cases where a building to be used for the proper business of the pertinent corporation is being constructed, and since there is no provision that restricts the scope of direct use, it shall be deemed that a building is being constructed even when the construction has been interrupted for a long time. Accordingly, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

According to Articles 105, 115, 120, 121, 124, 150-2, and 151 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act"), acquisition tax and registration tax are imposed once on a person who has acquired rights or registered changes in rights, and they are presumed ex post facto to have been collected by tax return and payment, while property tax is imposed on a person who actually owns property each year as a tax base pursuant to Articles 183, 190 through 192 of the former Local Tax Act. Since it is found that there is a shortage or error in the number of property and the method of exemption from registration under Article 287 (2) of the former Local Tax Act, it does not constitute an exemption from registration tax under Article 287 (2) of the former Local Tax Act only if it is later revealed that it does not constitute an exemption from registration tax under Article 287 (1) of the former Local Tax Act.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) Article 38 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the duty to pay taxes under the conditions as prescribed by Act." Article 59 of the Constitution adopts the principle of no taxation without the law by stipulating that "types and rates of taxes shall be determined by Act." This principle of no taxation without the law means that taxation requirements, etc. must be provided by the law enacted by the National Assembly, which is the representative body of the people, and that the law should be strictly interpreted and applied in its enforcement, and that expansion or analogical application of administrative convenience is not allowed. Thus, it violates the principle of no taxation without the law by stipulating matters concerning taxation requirements, etc. by administrative legislation, such as orders or rules without the delegation of the law, or by interpreting and expanding the contents of the law without the permission of the law (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du11731, Mar. 16, 200). Furthermore, interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall not be interpreted in accordance with the principle of no taxation without the law without the law, and it is not permitted to expand or analogical interpretation without the reasonable reason.

B) The main sentence of Article 183(1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "a person who actually owns property as of the tax base date of property tax shall be liable to pay the property tax, and Article 190 provides that "the tax base date of property tax shall be June 1 of each year." As of June 1 of each year, a person who actually owns land as of June 1 shall be liable to pay the property tax on the land. Meanwhile, the main sentence of Article 287(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "a medical corporation established pursuant to Article 48 of the Medical Service Act shall be exempted from property tax on the real estate used directly for medical business as of the tax base date," and Article 230 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "the scope of direct use shall include the case where a building directly used for the proper business of the corporation is being constructed in applying the provisions on

However, Article 12 (1) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that in cases of property subject to general aggregate taxation as of the base date of taxation, a person whose aggregate amount of published prices of the land subject to taxation located in Korea exceeds OOOO won or a person whose aggregate amount of published prices of the land subject to taxation located in Korea exceeds OOOO won shall be liable to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the relevant land. Therefore, in cases of this case where the issue of whether the comprehensive real estate holding tax is liable for payment of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the land is in fact suspended, the issue is whether it falls under the category of a building subject to exemption under Article 287 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act even if the construction

C) In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, where a building is being constructed under Article 230 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, it shall not be deemed that all the period from the commencement to the completion of construction is included, and it shall not be deemed that the construction was suspended for a considerable period of time without justifiable grounds. Therefore, each construction of this case where the construction is suspended and the completion of the construction is unlikely to be predicted, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes a case where a building is under construction. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Article 287 (2) of the former Local Tax Act only provides that "the exemption from property tax on the real estate used directly for medical business as of the tax base date," and the scope of direct use does not refer to subordinate statutes. Therefore, the scope of direct use under Article 230 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be understood as clarifying the meaning of "direct use" under Article 287 (2) of the former Local Tax Act within the scope of not impairing the legal stability and predictability pursued by the principle of no taxation without law. Therefore, the phrase "where a building is being constructed to be used directly for the proper business of the corporation" under Article 230 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act should be interpreted as "where the construction of the building to be used for the medical business is in progress or where the construction is temporarily interrupted due to justifiable grounds."

(2) Article 287(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides for the enhancement of national welfare and welfare by reducing the tax burden of a medical corporation that is a national health promotion project. However, the reduction of local tax finance due to such tax reduction and exemption leads to the result that the tax burden is transferred to other taxpayers, and thus, determination of whether the requirements for tax reduction and exemption are satisfied. However, if the construction of a building to be used in medical services was suspended for a considerable period of time without justifiable grounds after the commencement of construction of the building, if property tax is reduced or exempted even if the construction was discontinued for a considerable period of time without justifiable reasons, the improvement of national welfare and welfare, which is legislative purport, would result in only the improvement

(3) Article 287 (2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that real estate acquired to use directly for medical service shall be exempted from the acquisition tax and registration tax, but if such real estate is not used directly for medical service within one year from the date of its acquisition without justifiable grounds, or if it is sold or used for other purposes without using directly for medical service for two or more years from the date of its use, the exempted acquisition tax and registration tax for the corresponding portion shall be presumed. However, in the case of property tax, it is necessary to determine whether the pertinent real estate is used directly for medical service by judging whether it is used directly for each tax base date. However, in the case of the disposition of this case, since each of the land of this case is actually suspended as of the tax base date, it shall be deemed that the land of this case does not constitute the real estate used directly for medical service, and thus,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.