농어촌특별세부과처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. In the real estate auction procedure on October 9, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased Samsung 110 dong 301 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for tax reduction by 50% pursuant to Article 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on October 15, 2012, filed a return on and pay acquisition tax amount of KRW 12,200,000, special rural development tax of KRW 610,00, local education tax of KRW 1,220,000, total of KRW 14,030,000.
B. The Defendant: (a) imposed and collected a special tax for rural development, 2,752,560 won on the Plaintiff on February 10, 2014, on the grounds that the acquisition of the instant real estate does not constitute an object of acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013; Act No. 11613, Jan. 1, 2013; and (b) deeming that the acquisition of the instant real estate constitutes a reason for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax for multi-family
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Defendant confirmed that there was a defect in the part of the necessary entries in the tax notice of the instant disposition, which was not stated separately for the additional tax on negligent tax returns and for the additional tax on negligent tax payment for each item of taxation, and revoked the instant disposition ex officio on October 8, 2015.
On October 13, 2015, the Defendant supplemented the foregoing defects, imposed and collected a total of KRW 2,440,000 for special rural development tax, and KRW 2,752,560 for additional tax for arrears, and KRW 312,560 for additional tax for arrears.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition on the ground that it was unlawful. However, as seen earlier, the defendant revoked the instant disposition ex officio, the instant disposition loses its validity and does not exist any longer.