2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of rejecting rectification of KRW 5,340,920, acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on October 19, 2016; KRW 267,040, special rural development tax; KRW 534,090, and local education tax; KRW 6,142,50, and registration and license tax; KRW 5,129,530, and local education tax KRW 1,025,90, and KRW 6,15,430, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff purchased each of the above real estate in a lump sum at the auction procedure for multi-family housing (multi-household housing, multi-household housing, multi-unit housing, and multi-unit housing (multi-household housing, multi-unit housing, and housing, the registration of ownership was not obtained at the time of registration was completed on October 21, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “total sale price”), and the ownership was acquired by paying the price thereof on October 21, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “total sale price”) and at the time of voluntary auction for multi-family housing, the total floor area of which is five square meters on the ground of the instant land, and the total floor area of which is five square meters on the ground of the instant land. < Amended by Act No. 1284, Oct. 20, 2015>

B. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 5,340,920, special rural development tax, KRW 267,040, local education tax, and KRW 534,090, which applied the acquisition tax rate of KRW 40/1,00 of Article 11(1)7 (b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14475, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same) with the tax base of KRW 133,523,247, which was calculated at the ratio of the standard market price among the total sale price, based on the sale price of the building in this case, based on the acquisition price of KRW 256,476,753, which was calculated at the ratio of the standard market price among the total sale price, the Plaintiff reported and paid the registration license tax of KRW 250,00,000, KRW 539,505.

C. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the additional construction work by taking into account KRW 280,500,000 for the instant building, and obtained approval for use on the said building. On June 10, 2016, the said building was registered in the building ledger.

D. On September 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant building upon obtaining approval for the use thereof; and (b) imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on September 13, 2016, pursuant to Article 15(2)7 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, KRW 5,183,390 (including additional tax) on the instant building.

E. On October 17, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) applied Article 11(1)8 of the former Local Tax Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) on the ground that the instant land and building was already subject to acquisition tax at the time of purchase in the voluntary auction procedure; and (b) filed a request for correction to the effect that acquisition tax should be applied to the acquisition of the said land and building; and (c) the Defendant rendered a request for correction to the effect that 10/1,000 of acquisition tax rate under the said provision should be applied to the acquisition of the said land and building; (d) the instant land and building cannot be deemed as the housing and the land annexed thereto subject to the said provision, since acquisition tax is not subject to acquisition tax, and (e) the registration license tax should be paid to the Plaintiff on October 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the instant building was constructed with a building permit (multi-household) and was not approved for use, it constitutes a house to which the instant provision applies, and thus, the said provision applies to the acquisition of the instant building and the instant land, which is its appurtenant land, shall be subject to 10/1,00 of the acquisition tax rate under the said provision (in cases where the price is below 600 million won at the time of acquisition). In addition, applying Article 15(2)7 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act to the “acquisition of a building for which the time of acquisition comes after the establishment of registration and license tax liability” to the “acquisition of a building for which the time of acquisition comes after the establishment of registration and license tax liability” is intended to pay acquisition tax applying the heavy standard tax rate instead of registration and license tax liability when the registration and license tax rate is lower than the base tax rate. Therefore, it is double taxation. Therefore, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction and exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

Unlike the application of the tax rate of 40/1,00 in cases where real estate, other than farmland, is acquired for reasons other than those prescribed in subparagraphs 1 through 6 of Article 11(1) of the Local Tax Act, the said provision provides that the tax rate of 10/1,00 to 30/1,00 shall apply to the house (building and its appurtenant land) acquired due to commercial transactions, depending on the value at the time of the acquisition of the house. Furthermore, the said provision limits the scope of the house subject to the application of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Act to “a house under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Act, which is a house, is recorded in the building ledger under Article 38 of the Building Act, and is used for residential purposes, and land annexed thereto,” to “a building, the purpose of which is to promote residential stability and housing transaction normalization through the mitigation of acquisition tax burden following the housing transaction, but to which the scope of the house subject to the application of registration license tax on the building ledger is limited to the building ledger, such as the date of acquisition.

2) First, whether to apply the instant provision on reduction or exemption, and the instant provision on reduction or exemption shall apply to the acquisition of a building and its appurtenant land recorded in the building ledger as a house for consideration transaction. However, even if the Plaintiff’s total sale price was recorded in the building ledger at the time of payment of the total sale price, and the total construction cost incurred by the Plaintiff is not more than KRW 600 million, which is the acquisition price standard to which the tax rate of 10/1,000 applies pursuant to the instant provision on reduction or exemption, the instant land acquired by the Plaintiff by paying the sale price on October 21, 2015, cannot be deemed as the “land annexed to the building” to which the said provision applies, insofar as the instant building was not entered in the building ledger at the time as it was not entered in the building ledger. Moreover, since the Plaintiff completed additional construction on the instant building without approval for use on its own, it was registered in the building ledger after obtaining approval for use on June 8, 2016, it cannot be deemed that the said provision applies to the acquisition of the building.

Next, the tax items and tax rate applicable to the instant land and building is health, and the tax rate of 40/1,000 shall apply to the instant land according to Article 11(1)7(b) of the former Local Tax Act, which is a general provision for the acquisition tax rate of real estate. Meanwhile, the registration license tax rate of 20/1,000 of the former Local Tax Act is applied to the instant building that cannot be deemed subject to acquisition tax because it is not actually used without obtaining approval for use. As such, the registration license tax rate of 20/1,00 of the former Local Tax Act was established only when the liability to pay registration and license tax was established, and the Plaintiff acquired the “building for which the time of acquisition comes after the establishment of the registration and license tax liability” upon obtaining approval for use of the said building on June 8, 2016, and thus, the acquisition tax rate of 20/1,000 of the former Local Tax Act may not be deemed as an acquisition tax rate of 30/1,000,0000.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yang Sung-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)