취득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, etc. and B, during the period from October 2015 to January 2016, 2016, are the partitioned sections of the said building from the selling company of Suwon-si Ctel in Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant building”).
1. The “Dong Ho-ho” list of the Selections is each person who has acquired each corresponding heading room (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) in lots.
B. The Plaintiff, etc. and B paid acquisition tax amounting to 40/1,000 of the acquisition value (the tax rate under Article 11(1)7(b) of the Local Tax Act) to the Defendant upon receipt of a sale order on each of the instant real estate.
C. On March 2, 2016, B, March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff, etc. falls under residential facilities, not business facilities, since each of the instant real estate against each of the Defendant falls under residential facilities, and Article 11(1)7b of the Local Tax Act.
In addition to the tax rate of the item (40/1,00), among subparagraph 8 of the same paragraph (hereinafter “instant provision”), the tax rate applied (10/1,000) to the housing with the value of 60 million won or less at the time of acquisition should be applied, and each acquisition tax correction claim was filed.
Accordingly, on March 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the refusal of the application for correction of acquisition tax on April 8, 2016.
(hereinafter “each disposition of this case”). (e)
Plaintiff
On June 17, 2016, B filed a tax appeal seeking the revocation of each of the dispositions in this case with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the respective claims on September 1, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff et al. asserted by the plaintiff et al. and the plaintiff et al. are sold in lots each of the real estate in this case.
Under the premise that it constitutes “real estate other than farmland” as defined in the following items, it shall be governed by the said provision.