취득세 및 지방교육세 감액경정청구에 대한 거부처분 취소의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff purchased No. 707 on June 22, 2016, KRW 275 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 8, 2016, and purchased KRW 1203 billion on September 30, 2016, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2016.
On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 11,00,00,000, local education tax of KRW 1,100,000, and KRW 1,100,000, and KRW 12,60,000, and local education tax of KRW 12,00,00,00 on October 31, 2016, under the premise that acquisition tax rate of KRW 4% is applied to the acquisition of the instant apartment.
On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for refund by revising the acquisition tax amount of KRW 8,250,000, local education tax of KRW 825,000, local education tax of KRW 1203, the difference, and KRW 9,450,00, local education tax of KRW 9,450,00, and KRW 945,00,00, respectively, on the grounds that the acquisition rate of KRW 1% for acquiring the apartment of this case ought to be applied to the Defendant.
On September 13, 2017, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s acquisition tax rate on the ground that Article 11 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1475, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”) which applies at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate is limited to both the building ledger and the current status, and Article 11 of the amended Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14475, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter “Revised Local Tax Act”) shall not apply to the instant case in accordance with the transitional provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Addenda of the amended Local Tax Act.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 3, 2017, but was dismissed on December 28, 2017.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole oral argument as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case is that the apartment of this case was actually a house, but there is no building ledger.