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

A. The Plaintiff, a company established for the purpose of managing and operating national sports facilities, started with the construction of a golf course (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf course”) in the name “C (D: hereinafter referred to as “the instant golf course”) with the aim of completing the construction from June 5, 2005 to June 30, 2007, under the name of 27 holes (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). However, the Plaintiff did not register a golf course under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act until the date of closing argument.

B. On June 5, 2005, the Defendant: (a) viewed the Plaintiff’s commencement of pilot crowdfunding as the date of deemed acquisition of heavy acquisition tax due to the change of land category of 18 holes among the instant golf course; (b) imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on September 13, 2005, and urged the Plaintiff to file a voluntary report and payment several times from September 13, 2005, but did not comply with the demand; (c) subject to tax investigation from October 6, 2006 to October 206, 2006, and from March 5, 2007, imposed acquisition tax on the portion of 18 holes among the instant golf course, and imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on March 5, 207 and special rural development tax and special rural development tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The time of deemed acquisition due to the change of land category of a golf course shall be when all construction works for a golf course, such as the cutting, filling, cutting, brick construction, diversion of farmland, etc., are completed as well as when the formation of a golf course becomes de facto land category as a sports site due to the completion of construction of the golf course. The overall construction rate of the golf course as of April 30, 207 is 94%, and the remaining construction is equivalent to 6%, and the implementation plan of the golf course shall not be completed until June 30, 2007, and the alteration of land category shall be completed as of June 20, 2007 (the alteration of land category shall be deemed to have been completed as of June 30, 2007; the construction of the golf course, landscaping construction, lighting construction, and landscape construction; and the alteration of land category of the golf course shall be deemed to have been completed as of June 20, 2007, which was completed as of June 28, 2005>

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the evidence set forth in Gap evidence and evidence set forth in Gap evidence set forth in Gap evidence set forth in the above, Gap evidence set forth in Gap evidence set forth in 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, Gap evidence set forth in 18-2, 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence set forth in Eul evidence set forth in Eul evidence set forth in the above, Eul evidence set forth in 2, 9, 10

A. On February 28, 1990, upon obtaining the approval of the D business plan from Jeollabuk-do, the Plaintiff started construction period on May 20, 2003, and contracted the instant golf course construction to E Co., Ltd. on June 30, 2003 and completed construction work on June 12, 2005. The Plaintiff concluded a contract to extend the construction period to December 31, 2007 on five occasions thereafter.

B. Until June 4, 2005, the day before the pilot trading took place, the Plaintiff started model trading from June 5, 2005 with regard to the construction cost of approximately 35.7 billion won (the total construction cost is KRW 47.8 billion) with regard to the creation of golf clubs on the instant land. From June 5, 2005, the construction cost of golf clubs commenced from June 7, 2005. The construction rate at that time was 7.15%, and the construction of earth and sand, turf construction, green-sar construction, landscape construction, miter construction, reservoir construction, etc. were completed. The construction of parking lots, management roads, appurtenant works, sewage treatment and pipelines, golf clubs construction, golf clubs construction, packing facilities construction and packing facilities, golf clubs construction and packing facilities from around March 31, 2007, the construction of golf clubs and its neighboring facilities are continuously installed from around 000, 207.

C. After the plaintiff started to engage in a pilot trading in 18 holes, the plaintiff is running a business with an admission fee of 45,00 won including the special consumption tax, and the non-member is running a business with an admission fee of 70,000 won from June 5, 2005. Meanwhile, the plaintiff made a business day from August 29, 2005 to the director of the Namwon District Tax Office. The plaintiff paid the special consumption tax to the golf course user who paid the special consumption tax. The golf course user who paid the special consumption tax was the first 13,450 won from June 3, 2005 to July 2006 ( June 2006), and the last 1,190 won from the date of the entry into the last 1,190 won ( December 2, 2005).

D. Determination

(1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the time of commencement of demonstration crowdfunding is the time of deemed acquisition of heavy acquisition tax, and thus, is concerned.

Article 73 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1869 of Jan. 5, 2005) provides that "acquisition due to a land category change shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date actually changed: Provided, That where the date of de facto change of land category is unknown, the date of such change of land category shall be deemed acquisition; and Article 86-3 provides that "the date prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 120 (2) of the Act means the date prescribed in the following subparagraphs; and subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Article provides that "the golf course is actually used as a golf course before its registration; and that "the time of de facto change of land category" shall be deemed to be "the time of change of land category" in subparagraph 9 of the same Article (including the registration of change of land) and "the time of de facto change of land category to be used as a new golf course" in accordance with the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act; and that "the time of de facto change of land category and land category" in the existing.

However, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act amended by Presidential Decree No. 18669, Jan. 5, 2005, Article 73(8) which provides for the time of property acquisition shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date the land category of the land is substantially changed (referring to the date the land category is changed if the de facto change is unclear). In such cases, for the portion temporarily used prior to the date of land category change, it shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date it is actually used. Article 86-3 subparag. 1(b) which provides for the report and payment of the property acquisition tax subject to heavy taxation. The golf course is registered as sports facility business (including registration of change) under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act: Provided, That if it is actually used as a golf course before its registration, it shall be deemed to have been used on the date it is actually used before its construction is completed, and it shall be deemed to have been used on the date it is actually changed within 30 days before its registration date under the amended Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

In addition, the main purpose of the demonstration crowdfunding itself is to examine the courses, etc. and supplement deficiencies prior to opening a golf course. However, it is not limited to the inspection of the courses, etc. and opening the golf course to supplement deficiencies, and it is used as a means of public relations to open the golf course to many general public, or it is used as a means of operating the golf course in fact without intentionally completing its construction, and it is used as a means of extending the time limit for payment of heavy acquisition tax, and it is also used as a means of extending the time limit for payment of heavy acquisition tax. In light of the fact that such evasion of law should be prevented, Article 73(8) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that "in addition, it shall be deemed that the portion temporarily used prior to the date of land category change shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date it is actually used, even before the completion of the golf course, it shall be deemed that the above imposition of acquisition tax should be imposed when it is actually used for the purpose of operating the golf course.

As above, the Plaintiff asserts that there is a problem of double taxation if the construction of a golf course is imposed on the said portion after the temporary use of the golf course. However, Article 11(3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 82 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that the difference between the standard market price before the land category change and the standard market price after the land category change (if it is proved by court rulings or corporate books, etc., the cost thereof shall be different) of the above provision and Article 83(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act concerning the construction of a golf course shall not be deemed as the date of its use, and that the tax liability for heavy acquisition tax can not be imposed on the said portion, which is separate from those for the construction of a golf course from those for the construction of a golf course. However, since the acquisition tax cannot be imposed on the said portion after the completion of the construction of the golf course, it shall not be deemed that there is a separate ground for the change of the land category from those for the construction of a golf course.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the approval of the D business plan was obtained from Jeollabuk-do on February 28, 1990 and that it cannot be viewed as the time of acquisition on June 5, 2005, prior to obtaining approval of the business plan, is without merit.

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.

Judges Lee Young-ho

Judges Kim Jae-sung