취득세환급신청 거부결정처분 취소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following (3). As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Measures 5 and 6 of this case’s Disposition 5 and 7 of this case’s Disposition 5 and 6 of this case’s 7 to 13 pages under the 12 pages of deletion from the 4th parallels up to the 5th parallels up to the 5th parallels from the 5th parallels up to the 5th parallels up to 5th parallels.
3. Supplement and addition of judgments;
A. The plaintiff asserts that the first notification of this case is as follows.
Even if the instant commission is a trustee in the form of a trustee, the Plaintiff acquired a house as a loan under the Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State as an actual purchaser of the key house, such as transferring the registration tax, etc. personally to a certified judicial scrivener and receiving a receipt from the Defendant.
In addition, the Plaintiff is exempted from acquisition tax for KRW 52,10,000 for the housing at issue. According to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff stated the tax base amount in the acquisition tax payment certificate as KRW 85,044,635, and the total market price of the building, KRW 52,846,410, which is calculated by adding up the total sale price of 24 households of members of the instant committee.
(Violation of Article 10(5) of the Local Tax Act (Violation of Article 10(5)). We examine the case, as if the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court was rendered, the person who filed a tax base return for acquisition tax on the housing at issue is not the plaintiff but the committee of this case. Thus, the right to request correction under Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is not recognized, but