취득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, special tax for rural development, and local education tax (hereinafter “acquisition tax, etc.”) under Article 31(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation (amended by Act No. 13435, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”) by reporting that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of Btel 1508 (the exclusive use area of 27.74 square meters; hereinafter “the instant officetel”) falls under the case where an officetel was first purchased from the owner of the building for the purpose of lease by a rental business operator and was registered as a rental business operator on the same day.
B. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) investigated the current use of the instant officetel; and (b) deemed that the Plaintiff used the instant officetel for purposes other than rent, which is the requirement for additional collection, such as acquisition tax under Article 31(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, by allowing the Plaintiff to use it by his/her family members; and (c) issued a disposition to collect the total amount of KRW 18,860,960
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 4, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 7, 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, 3, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around September 2014, leased the instant officetel to ASEAN; (b) received monthly rent of KRW 800,000 from C; and (c) from February 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 120 million monthly rent from 300,000.
C has been living in the instant officetel from September 2014 to bear management expenses, gas costs, and parking fees.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not use the instant officetel for any purpose other than rent, the instant disposition is unlawful.
(b).