소유권의 귀속이 분명하지 아니한 경우 그 사용자가 종합부동산세 납세의무자임[국승][국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap31120 ( October 10, 2013)
early 2012west 946
If the attribution of ownership is unclear, the employer shall be liable for the comprehensive real estate holding tax (national succession).
(1) As of the tax base date of the property tax, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff used and profit from the horse riding in the first and second lands as of the tax base date of the property tax, and that the Plaintiff constitutes a taxpayer of the property tax of the first and second lands pursuant to Article 183(3) of the former Local Tax Act. Therefore, each comprehensive real estate holding tax in the instant case is legitimate.
Article 12 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act
2013Nu1598 Revocation of the imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.
AntiA
The Director of the sericultural Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap31120 decided May 10, 2013
December 3, 2013
December 27, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
On November 10, 2011, the Defendant revoked each imposition of the comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax for the Plaintiff in 2006, the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the first time in 2006, the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the first time in 2007 and the special rural development tax for the first time in 2007, the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the first time in 2008 and the special rural development tax for the first time in 200, the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the first time in 209, the OOOOO and the special rural development tax for the second time in 20
[Change in jurisdiction of the defendant was corrected by the head of the Songpa District Tax Office to the head of the sericultural Tax Office]
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's explanation on this case is the same as the statement of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation is citing the same as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.