재산세(건물분) 과세 수정청구요구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of disposition;
A. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 788,800,000 the building on the ground C of the Jeonnam-gun District Court (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 788,80,000, at the auction procedure conducted by the lower-party company (hereinafter “Nonindicted company”) to the lower-party company in Gwangju District Court wooden Branch B.
B. On August 22, 2017, the Defendant imposed property tax amount of KRW 20,482,340 [including property tax of KRW 10,05,660 (including property tax of KRW 3,598,950), local resource and facility tax of KRW 9,171,340 (including property tax of KRW 3,598,950), local education tax of KRW 1,285,340]; on August 22, 2017, the Defendant imposed the tax base amount of KRW 20,482,340 (including property tax of KRW 3,598,950), which is calculated by applying 70% of the fair market value to the statutory standard price for each unit of “instant building” owned by the Plaintiff as of the tax base date for property tax of each unit
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s No. 1, 2, and Eul’s No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the purchase price of the building of this case is the same as the successful bid price of the non-party company, and in the financial sphere, the current standard is set based on the successful bid price. Thus, the standard market price of the building of this case is KRW 788,80,000, the successful bid price is KRW 552,160,000, which is 70% of the amount, and the property tax is calculated based on the tax base of KRW 1,380,40. The part exceeding the above KRW 1,380,40 among the disposition of this case is unlawful.
(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;
C. In imposing one property tax, we examine whether the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition, that is, whether the Plaintiff should consider KRW 788,800,000 that the Plaintiff acquired in the instant case.
In this regard, property tax is imposed on the owner by recognizing the tax-bearing force for the possession of taxable objects, and it is imposed by recognizing the tax-bearing force per se for the acquisition and transfer of property.