대표자 ※※※

2. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Development Bank;

지지지지지

3. ★★★★★★★★★

대표자 ★★★

4. ○ Bank;

○○○○

5. Bilateral Bank of Korea;

쇠지지지

6. Matern Bank;

dedicated representative director

7. Lawsuit against the stock company.

Representative Director;

A person shall be appointed.

대표자 ◆◆◆

9. △ Bank;

[Representative Director]

10.주식회사■■은행

대표이사■■■

11. △△△△△

Representative △△△

12. 주식회사 ▲▲은행

대표이사 ▲▲▲

13. The ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽하고

President President of the Republic of Korea xx▽▽▽

14. ▼▼ 주식회사

대표이사 ▼▼▼

15. 주식회사 ◁◁

Do governor Do governor

16. ▷▷ 주식회사

공동대표이사 ▷▷▷, ▷▷▷

17. ▶▶▶▶▶▶

대표자 ▶▶▶

18. ♤♤♤♤♤♤♤

Representative show showes

19. ♠ ♠ 주식회사

대표이사♠♠

20.주식회사♡♡은행

대표이사♡♡♡

21.주식회사♥♥

대표이사♥♥♥

22. ♧♧ 주식회사

BB of representative director BB

23. Development and development of an incorporated association;

Representative Directors & & & & & &

24. Stock companies;

Representative Director;

25. III Stock Company;

I. III representative director;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The director of the Gwangju Tax Office.

3. The director of the Southern District Tax Office.

4. The head of the Daegu Tax Office.

5. The director of the tax office.

6. The director of the Mapo Tax Office.

7. The director of the tax office on North Korea.

8. The director of Samsung Tax Office.

9. Western director of the tax office.

10. The director of the male tax office.

11. The director of the radio wave tax office.

12. The director of the regional tax office.

13. The superintendent of the regional tax office.

14. Paper director of the tax office.

15. Vice-President of the Tax Office;

16. Director of the Jeju Tax Office.

17. The director of the competent tax office.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Jink, Attorney Jin-won)

Government Law Firm, Attorney Lee Jae-in

Defendants Litigation Performers Aaa

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendants set forth in the Nos. 1 through 26 of the Schedule of Disposition Nos. 1 to 26 to the relevant plaintiffs

[Attachment 2] List of Tax Amount of Attached 2 out of the imposition of comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax in 2009

Parts exceeding comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax entered in column 1 through 26

취소하고, 피고 중부세무서장이 2010. 2. 23. 원고 주식회사 ♥♥ 에 대하여 한 경정

The rejection disposition shall be revoked (as described in the attached Form 1 of the complaint's claim, No. 3 of the date of disposition

''' on November 26, 2009 and 6' on November 20, 2009, 'No. 20 on November 20, 2009, 'No. 13' on November 23, 2009, 'No. 15' on November 23, 200,

''' on November 25, 2009, 'each of 16, 21', 'No. 23, 2009, 'No. 26' on November 20, 209 and 'no. 26' on November 20, 2009.

‘' appears to be a clerical error in November 16, 2009.

2. Purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

가. 피고들은 별지1 처분목록의 순번 1 내지 26 기재 각 처분일에 해당 원고들에게 2009년도 종합부동산세 및 농어촌특별세를 부과하였고1 ) 2 ), 원고 주식회사 ♥♥는 2009 .

12. On February 12, 2010, the Defendant filed a request for rectification on the ground that comprehensive real estate holding tax was paid in excess of KRW 13,864, 378, 380, special rural development tax, KRW 2,772, 875, and KRW 670, with the head of Jung-gu Tax Office, but the Defendant notified the said Plaintiff on February 23, 2010 that there was no ground to rectify the tax amount (No. 27) (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions of imposition and refusal of correction against the Plaintiffs”).

B. In calculating the amount of property tax deducted in the calculation of the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax pursuant to Articles 9(3) and 14(3) and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "amended Act") (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Act"), the Defendants should prepare and calculate the amount of property tax deducted in the calculation of the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax pursuant to Article 9(3) and 14(3) and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21293, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the amended Act") as the "standard for calculating the amount of property tax calculated as the "standard for calculating the amount of property tax calculated as the "standard for property tax rate of 20 [Attachment 3].

【Unsatisfy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy-profy

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) If property tax and comprehensive real estate tax are imposed concurrently on the same taxable object, it is unlawful as double taxation. As such, Articles 9(3), 14(3) and (6) of the amended Act and Articles 4-2 and 5-3(1) and (2) of the amended Enforcement Decree provide that in calculating the amount of comprehensive real estate tax, the amount of tax imposed on the taxable object of comprehensive real estate tax should be deducted as property tax. However, in calculating the deducted amount of property tax, the Defendants, in calculating the deducted amount of property tax, deducted only the amount of tax imposed on the taxable object of comprehensive real estate tax by multiplying the amount of property tax (comprehensive real estate tax or property tax) by the fair market price ratio, and did not deduct the remaining amount of tax.

Therefore, each disposition of this case is illegal to impose the comprehensive real estate holding tax without deducting the amount of property tax partially, and the preparation of the enforcement rules of the above amendment providing the calculation method does not fully deduct the amount of property tax for the same taxable object subject to which the comprehensive real estate holding tax is imposed, and it is unlawful or invalid as it violates the Constitution or violates the principle of no taxation without the law

2) The Ministry of Finance and Economy, on September 3, 2003, changed in the real estate holding taxation system, or in imposing the comprehensive real estate holding tax through the explanatory materials of the title ? The amount of the property tax imposed by a local government is deducted from the total amount of the property tax imposed by the local government, so it is not double taxation, and there was a public opinion that there is no possibility of unconstitutionality, but only part of the property tax paid by the plaintiffs through each disposition of this case. Each disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 4 is as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) The major amendments to the laws and regulations of the comprehensive real estate holding tax are as follows: (1) the former Act on the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax shall apply to the scope of the amount of the property tax deducted when calculating the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax.

According to the above-mentioned Acts and subordinate statutes and their amendments in the formula for calculating the amount of property tax (3) in attached Form 3 of the attached Table of the Enforcement Rule of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (2) in order to calculate the amount of property tax to be deducted under the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (3) : (1) in calculating the amount of comprehensive real estate tax for up to 2008, the previous Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate the amount of taxation on the land subject to comprehensive housing or aggregate aggregate taxation (hereinafter referred to as "housing, etc.") (limited to 60 million won in total of the publicly notified price of housing, 4 billion won in total of the publicly notified price of land subject to aggregate aggregate taxation; hereinafter referred to as "60 million won in total of the publicly notified price of land subject to aggregate taxation"); and (4) billion won in total of the publicly notified price of land subject to aggregate taxation; (2) the amount exceeding the amount of annual application rate and tax rate; and (3) the amount of property tax to be deducted, such as the amount of property tax to be imposed by the previous formula, as prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of property tax.

The amount equivalent to property tax calculated as the standard tax rate of property tax on the portion exceeding B/ [the amount equivalent to property tax calculated as the standard tax rate of property tax on the portion exceeding B/the amount equivalent to property tax on the aggregate of housing x X property tax base x property tax rate x property tax rate] / The amended Act deleted the concept of "tax base amount" in calculating the amount of comprehensive real estate tax on the portion exceeding 600 million won among the publicly notified prices of housing x the amount obtained by multiplying the amount of tax base by the fair market price rate of property tax on the portion exceeding 600 million won among the publicly notified prices of housing x the following tax rate shall be multiplied by the tax base rate. The specific formula in calculating the amount of property tax on the basis of the tax base is to deduct the amount of property tax on the relevant housing subject to taxation, etc. As prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act and the Enforcement Rule of the amended Act, the amount equivalent to property tax on the basis of the standard tax rate of property tax on the aggregate amount of property tax on housing, such as X housing x the fair market price rate of property tax x the amended tax rate.

C) As to this, the plaintiffs argued that the method of determining the tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax under the previous Act and the amended Act is changed from the method of multiplying the amount obtained by deducting the amount of KRW 600 million from the publicly announced price by the annual application rate and the tax rate by the fair market price ratio instead of the annual application rate. Since the amount of tax is, in principle, multiplied the tax base by the tax rate. Thus, the "amount equivalent to property tax, such as housing, etc. subject to taxation" should be interpreted as the amount calculated by applying the standard tax rate of property tax to the "amount (tax base) calculated by multiplying the publicly announced price in excess of the tax base by the fair market price ratio (whether it means the fair market price ratio under the amended Act, and whether it means the fair market price ratio under the amended Local Tax Act, and it is unclear whether it means the fair market price ratio under the amended Local Tax Act)".

(2) If the revised Local Tax Act prescribes the concept of "standard amount of property tax" differently from the previous laws, and prescribes the amount which is the standard amount of property tax deducted from "standard amount of property tax" to "tax base". Article 4-2 and Article 5-3 (1) and (2) of the revised Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides a differential rate of property tax, such as housing, etc., the revised Local Tax Act provides that the property tax base shall not be applied to "amount of property tax calculated by multiplying the fair market value by the fair market value ratio" (the fair market value calculated by multiplying the fair market value ratio by the fair market value ratio), so it is clear that the revised Local Tax Act provides that the standard amount of property tax shall not be applied to "the fair market value" (the fair market value ratio ? the fair market value ratio x the fair market value ratio of property tax x the fair market value ratio of the above revised Local Tax Act, and that the revised formula shall not apply to "the fair market value."

D) Furthermore, since the amended Act and the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act stipulate that the amount of tax imposed as property tax on housing portion, aggregate or separate aggregate or separate aggregate taxation subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be deducted, it is reasonable to interpret the portion subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax as "the amount calculated by applying the standard tax rate to the amount (tax base) calculated by multiplying the amount (tax base) calculated by the fair market value ratio applicable to the property tax on the portion subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, by the amount (tax base) higher than the officially assessed value of the property subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, and it can prevent double taxation problem where the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the same

In light of the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any justifiable reason. In particular, it is consistent with the principle of fair taxation. (See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090 delivered on March 27, 1998, etc.) Unlike the previous law and the previous Enforcement Decree, the amended Act and the amended Enforcement Decree provide that the tax base amount shall be the portion exceeding the tax base amount by multiplying the fair market value ratio, and it shall not be deemed as the "amount of property tax deducted from the previous law and the previous Enforcement Decree", and it shall not be deemed as the "amount of property tax base" as the whole, and it shall not be deemed as the "amount of property tax to be deducted from the revised Enforcement Decree of the Act and the amended Enforcement Decree of the Act, which shall not be deemed as the "amount of 60 million won or more," and thus, it shall not be deemed as the "amount of property tax to be deducted from the revised Enforcement Rule 600 million won or more.

2) Whether the amended Enforcement Rule violates the principle of no taxation without the law

The method of preparing the amended Enforcement Rule is that even in the formula of calculating the property tax amount to be deducted according to the change to the tax base amount of the property tax amount to be deducted under the previous Act and the previous Enforcement Decree, the application of the property tax base rate and the property tax rate to the excess amount of the tax base amount under the previous Act and the previous Enforcement Decree shall be changed to the tax base amount multiplied by the fair market price ratio of the property tax and the property tax rate of the tax base amount to the tax base amount to be deducted by the fair market price ratio of the property tax, such as housing, by the fair market price ratio, and the property tax amount to be deducted under the amended Act and the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act and the amended Enforcement Decree shall not be unjustly reduced. The above amendment is to improve the unreasonable deduction of the property tax amount to be deducted under the previous Act and to accomplish the principle of substantial taxation and the principle

B) Whether the prohibition of double taxation violates the prohibition of double taxation

Since the nature of the burden on the same taxable object is identical to that of the double taxation is contrary to the principle of double taxation, the problem of double taxation is inevitably generated inasmuch as the property tax and the comprehensive real estate holding tax which are the same real estate holding tax for the same taxable object are imposed concurrently, and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act stipulates that the Enforcement Rule of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax shall deduct the property tax already paid in calculating the amount of tax so that the problem of double taxation is adjusted, and it is unconstitutional and invalid because the Enforcement Rule of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax has violated the principle of double taxation, but it is not justified for the following reasons.

① The system of deduction of the amount of property tax is to prevent double taxation by deducting property tax from the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax imposed on the tax base of the comprehensive real estate tax in order to prevent double taxation on the same property. Such double taxation problem is to be resolved if the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax is deducted from the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax imposed on the portion on which the comprehensive real estate tax is imposed. However, the comprehensive real estate tax is to be imposed on the person who owns the real estate in excess of the amount of the taxation base, but not from the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax imposed on the house, etc. in excess of the amount of the taxation base of the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax imposed on the house, etc., 60 million won is deducted from the amount of the publicly notified price, and again, it is to be excluded from the amount of the taxation base and the tax base [1 60 million won, etc.] calculated by multiplying the amount of the comprehensive real estate tax by the fair market price ratio x (160 million won, etc.). Therefore, the issue of double taxation does not arise.

② Under the previous law, the portion of the total amount of the published value minus the amount of the property tax equivalent to the total amount of the property tax (amount of the standard amount of taxation) should be deducted by calculating the amount of the property tax equivalent to the total amount of the published value (amount of the aggregate of the standard amount of taxation). When real comprehensive real estate tax is imposed, the revised law amended the amount of property tax that should only deducts the amount of the property tax equivalent to the excess amount of the standard amount of taxation from the total amount of the taxation amount by multiplying the amount of the standard amount of taxation amount by the annual applicable rate (the current fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate tax) even though only the tax base was imposed on the excess amount of the standard amount of taxation amount by deducting the amount of the property tax equivalent to the total amount of the standard amount of taxation amount of the comprehensive real estate tax (the officially announced value - 60 million won (the annual applicable rate) x (1-annual applicable rate) from the standard amount of taxation amount of the comprehensive real estate tax, as well as the property tax amount excessively deducted.

③ As such, since the amount of gross real estate holding tax under the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act is calculated by deducting the amount of tax imposed as property tax on real estate subject to the same taxation, even if real estate subject to the same taxation is divided into the portion imposed as property tax by a local government and the portion imposed as property tax by the State, and the portion paid as property tax is not paid again. Thus, the issue of double taxation does not arise between the comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2006Hun-Ba12, Nov. 12, 2008; 2006Hun-Ba71, Jul. 81, 207; 2007Hun-Ba8, 94, 2008Hun-Ba3,

④ In accordance with the amended Enforcement Rule, even if the amount of property tax on the subject of the comprehensive real estate holding tax is not partially deducted, in imposing the comprehensive real estate holding tax, any constitutional order that the amount of the property tax already paid shall not be deemed to have been granted to the legislative person. Moreover, the amended Enforcement Rule merely provides the specific formula of the amount of property tax subject to deduction under the amended Enforcement Rule and the amended Enforcement Decree, and thus does not violate the principle of no taxation without the law. As seen earlier, even if the plaintiffs' assertion that the contents of the amended Enforcement Rule and the amended Enforcement Rule are unconstitutional, the legislative discretion should be made as to whether to exclude or relax the imposition of taxes on the same subject of taxation, and how to adjust them. Thus, in imposing the comprehensive real estate holding tax and property tax, it cannot be said that it is a arbitrary legislative measure that significantly deviates from the limit of legislative discretion just because it did not deduct some tax amounts.

3) In general in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of an administrative agency, first, the administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency's opinion statement that is justifiable and trusted to the individual should not be attributable to the individual; third, the administrative agency should have trusted and trusted the opinion statement; fourth, the administrative agency's disposition contrary to the above opinion statement should cause an infringement on the interests of the individual who trusted the opinion statement; fourth, if any administrative disposition satisfies these requirements, it is against the principle of trust protection unless it is likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du19070, Mar. 9, 199; 2004Du466, Jun. 9, 2006).

B) According to the evidence evidence No. 5, it is acknowledged that the financial and economic division changed the taxation system of real estate holding on September 3, 2003, or how the amount of the property tax imposed by a local government is deducted from the total amount of the property tax imposed by a local government when imposing a comprehensive real estate holding tax through the explanatory material of the title "", and it is true that there is no possibility of unconstitutionality since the amount of the property tax is deducted from all the amount of the property tax imposed by the comprehensive real estate holding tax after the enforcement of the amended Act. As seen above, since the amount of the property tax for the portion on which the comprehensive real estate holding tax is imposed is deducted from all the amount of the property tax imposed after the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed due to the lack of reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For judges' error

on the date when the judge was appointed

3, 725, 413, 880 won was imposed, but thereafter, comprehensive real estate holding tax was reduced to 14,241, 803, and 815 won, and special rural development tax was reduced to 2,848, 360, and 763 won.

(c)

2 ) 피고 중부세무서장은 2009. 11. 16. 원고 주식회사 ♡♡ 은행에게 종합부동산세 4, 273, 431, 080원, 농어촌특별세 854, 686, 210원

B. Around July 6, 2010, according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal on July 6, 2010, comprehensive real estate holding tax amounting to KRW 4,255,084,05, and special rural development tax.

851, 016, 811 won was reduced.

3) The previous Act was amended by Act No. 8852 on February 29, 2008, enforced on the same day, and its previous Act was amended by Act No. 9273 on December 26, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "former Act").

§ 300.

4) Article 14(3) and (6) providing for the rate of comprehensive real estate holding tax and the amount of tax on land subject to aggregate and separate taxation is also the content of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

5) Notice of the aggregate amount of the published price of the housing, KRW 60 million, the aggregate amount of the published price of the land subject to general aggregate taxation, KRW 300,000,

It means the sum of the prices of 4 billion won (Article 7 (1) and Article 12 (1) of the previous Act), and the amended Act has deleted such concepts.

6) Prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21293 on February 4, 2009 and enforced on the same day (hereinafter referred to as "former Enforcement Decree").

7) Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 80 on May 12, 2009) which prescribes the formula applicable at the time of calculating the comprehensive real estate holding tax on 208.

of this chapter)