취득세부과처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 22-2(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, which provides for the reduction or exemption of support for raising multi-child while acquiring and registering a passenger car B (hereinafter the previous car) on March 3, 2017.
B. After that, the Plaintiff acquired a C Passenger Car on June 18, 2019 (hereinafter “instant automobile”), acquisition tax was reduced or exempted on the condition that the previous automobile will be registered or transferred within 60 days from the date of acquisition or registration of the instant automobile pursuant to Article 22-2(2)1 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act and Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.
C. However, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the payment of acquisition tax by voluntary report on the ground that the Plaintiff did not transfer the previous motor vehicle within 60 days from the date of acquisition or registration, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,823,070 on October 25, 2019.
On November 18, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification of acquisition tax refund on the grounds that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption due to alternative acquisition under Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, but the Defendant rejected it on December 9, 2019.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap's 1 to 3 and Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition did not deviate from the purport of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act because the Plaintiff transferred the previous motor vehicle within 60 days from the date of acquisition of the previous motor vehicle, and thus, the requirements for reduction and exemption of alternative acquisition stipulated in Article 10-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act were met. Although the Plaintiff re-acquisitions the previous motor vehicle under the Plaintiff’s name before 60 days elapse, the Plaintiff did not go beyond the purpose of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act