중과세부과처분 취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the land and buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land” and “instant building”) from B, C, and D from March 11, 2016 in KRW 11,350,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer therefor on April 29, 2016.
From June 26, 2012, the first and second underground floors of the instant building (hereinafter “instant underground floor”) were operated as an entertainment drinking house with the trade name “F” by E. From around June 26, 2012. On October 20, 2014, the execution of the business suspension period of one month, which was ordered by the head of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seoul, was practically closed upon the commencement of the execution of the business suspension period of one month, and such status continued even after the closure of business on December 30, 2014.
B. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with G and H on the instant underground floor with a lease deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000, and KRW 17,000,000 per month on the premise of an entertainment tavern business with respect to the instant underground floor.
C. Meanwhile, as a result of a field investigation on the actual condition of the use of the instant underground floor around May 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant underground floor constitutes an entertainment drinking house which is one of the buildings used for a high-class recreation center; and (b) imposed KRW 26,126,140 on the Plaintiff, including the tax amount imposed heavy taxation on the instant underground floor (including the site) on July 8, 2016; and (c) KRW 4,594,090 on the instant building on September 6, 2016, property tax of 2016, property tax of 24,243,180, local education tax of 4,295,410 on the instant land.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case" in total). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and Eul's Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) At the time of June 1, 2016, the tax base date for the instant disposition, the instant underground floor was not used as entertainment tavern, and thus does not constitute subject to heavy taxation.
(ii).