취득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff (the name of Jun. 21, 2015 was changed from the “Satopy Pungpy Korea”) was a religious organization for religious business purposes. On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a lot of land A1,359 square meters and B large-scale 463 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).
On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for reduction and exemption of local taxes, such as acquisition tax, on the ground that acquisition of each of the instant lands was a acquisition of a religious site. The Defendant exempted the acquisition tax, etc. of each of the instant lands pursuant to the main sentence of Article 50(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Local Taxes (Amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015
On May 3, 2016, the Defendant investigated the current status of use of each of the instant lands on May 3, 2016, and notified the Plaintiff of taxation on the total of 86,043,750 won of acquisition tax, special rural development tax, education tax, and additional tax pursuant to the proviso of Article 50(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Local Taxes, on the ground that the Plaintiff left each of the instant land as a site without using it for the relevant purpose after the lapse of three years from the date of acquisition thereof.
On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor on June 8, 2016, and on June 16, 2016, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor adopted some of the additional taxes and decided not to adopt the other items.
On July 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of acquisition tax of 60,570,000, local education tax of 5,057,000, and special rural development tax of 2,528,500 (including additional tax), according to the purport of the aforementioned pre-assessment review decision.
(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is based on the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5; and (c) Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the entire pleading as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate.