징수처분취소
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the primary claim that was changed in exchange by the court shall be dismissed.
2. This.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of a total of 33,221 square meters of land on four parcels, other than Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”).
Since then, the Plaintiff’s land of this case was previously amended by Act No. 11232, Jan. 26, 2012;
(2) The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).
(2) The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax on the land of this case on the ground that it constitutes the business property of a small or medium start-up start-up enterprise prescribed in the main sentence of Article 120(3). The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax on December 19, 2014. The Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff under the proviso to Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that “The land of this case was not used directly for the intended business within two years from the date of acquisition without justifiable grounds.”
(c) On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Governor of Gangwon-do, but was dismissed on July 3, 2017. However, on January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s objection on the ground that “an appeal filed after the expiration of the period for request, which was illegal, and did not undergo lawful procedures for a prior trial, is also unlawful.” 【No ground for recognition”, “No ground for recognition”, “Nos. 1, 2, and 9, and Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 (Ga number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Summary of the parties' arguments or defenses
A. Plaintiff 1) failed to serve a notice of taxation or a notice regarding the instant disposition, and became aware of the instant disposition of taxation immediately after June 14, 2017. (2) The instant disposition of taxation was rendered without going through lawful notice of taxation, and there is a significant procedural defect.
3. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to acquire the instant land after acquiring it.