취득세 등 경정거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers) of the Disposition Nos. 1 and 4 of this case.
[1] On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the building of 4,931.61 square meters on the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government C, 3,222.4 square meters and its 4th floor education and research facilities on the ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at a successful auction procedure.
The Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, etc. totaling KRW 253,148,580 by applying the tax rate of 40/1,000 prescribed by Article 11(1)7(b) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 24, 2015) with respect to the above acquisition on the same day (i.e., acquisition tax of KRW 220,129,200 for local education tax of KRW 22,012,920 for special rural development tax of KRW 11,06,460 for rural development tax of KRW
[2] On August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of acquisition tax, etc. according to the above tax rate on the ground that acquisition of the instant real estate by auction in the voluntary auction procedure constitutes original acquisition and that acquisition by auction constitutes an original acquisition and ought to be subject to the acquisition tax rate of 28/1,000 under Article 11(1)3 of the Local Tax Act.
On September 3, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
2. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the plaintiff's request was unlawful since the plaintiff's acquisition of the real estate of this case by auction during the voluntary auction procedure was original acquisition.
The auction is a kind of sale (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da15574, May 25, 1993). The acquisition of ownership by auction is by nature a succession acquisition.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da3703 delivered on August 27, 1991). The successful bidder paid the price by winning the real estate through the compulsory auction procedure and completed the ownership transfer registration in the future, but thereafter, the ownership of the auction real estate is owned because the ownership transfer registration in the name of the debtor, which is the basis of the procedure for compulsory auction, is invalid.