취득세액 경정청구 거부처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 26, 2013, at around 23:17, a causeal fire occurred, and at the time of the Plaintiff and B’s joint ownership, the Plaintiff and B destroyed a 475-2m2m2 square meters of the wife population C, D’s non-Dong general steel structure slope, 475m2m2 of the storage facilities (ware), E, F, and G’s ground H, a 487.5m2 of the sloping roof of the general steel structure moving into the Plaintiff’s ownership, and a 487.5m2 of the 487m2 of the non-Dong general steel structure sloping (ware), a factory of the non-Dong general steel structure slope (ware) (hereinafter referred to as “existing factory building” by referring to each of the above factories).
B. On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Defendant to reconstruct each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet of the same size (hereinafter “instant factory building”) at the same place as the existing factory building (hereinafter “instant factory building”) and completed the approval for use on November 28, 2013.
C. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 12,175,80, and special rural development tax of KRW 869,70, and KRW 13,741,260, and acquisition tax of KRW 5,934,290, and KRW 423,870, and special rural development tax of KRW 339,100, and KRW 6,697,260, respectively, on each building listed in the separate sheet 3 as of January 7, 2014.
On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for reduction of acquisition tax of KRW 18,110,090 (i.e., KRW 12,175,800, KRW 5,934,290) on the ground that the acquisition of the instant factory building constitutes “cases of substitute acquisition after fire-caused loss” under Article 92(1)3 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.
E. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant rejected an application for rectification to the Plaintiff to the effect that “In order to recognize the reduction and exemption of acquisition tax on alternative acquisition pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, fire due to force majeure such as natural disasters should be caused. In the Plaintiff’s case, it is not due to a natural disaster but due to an unexpected fire.”
(f) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff’s appeal is January 2014.