2. Each disposition of imposition 1, 2, and 4 as stated in the list of the attached taxation disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 6-1, 6-2, Gap evidence 7-1 to 7, Eul evidence 16, 18, Eul evidence 17-1 and 2.

A. On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired 3.3 billion won for a building with 20 square meters and 8 floors above the land B in Suwon-gu, Busan, Busan, on March 8, 2011, and thereafter, purchased 3.486, 072, and 280 won as the tax base. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 20, 2011>

3. 17. Acquisition tax of 196, 893, 360 won, special rural development tax of 12, 717, 180 won, local education tax of 13, 94, 280 won, and reporting and paying KRW 223,54,820.

2) On May 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the pertinent building 1st 560 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the pertinent building”) to C, and C operated the main points in the name of D (hereinafter referred to as “the instant main points”) from the above 1st m2 to D (hereinafter referred to as “the instant main points”).

B. The Defendant imposed and notified acquisition tax amounting to KRW 54,06,710 (including special rural development tax, KRW 4,917,80) calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate under Article 16(1)3 of the Local Tax Act to KRW 614,735,490, which is divided in proportion to the instant real estate, on the ground that the instant building is an entertainment drinking place, on the ground that it is an entertainment drinking house business place. (2) The Plaintiff received the notice directly on the date of the said imposition and received the notice from the Suwon-gu Office on July 30, 2012.

C. On July 17, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified 11,366,150 won (including local resource and facility tax 15,160 won, local education tax 1,890, 360 won) calculated by applying 70/100 of the fair market value ratio to 359, 466, and 360 won of the relevant building based on the standard market value ratio to 359, 46, and 360 won.

2) The Plaintiff received the written notice on the day of the said imposition, and received re-issuance of the written notice on July 30, 2012.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions, filed a tax appeal on October 5, 2012, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 6, 2012.

(e) Imposition of property tax on land in 2012;

On August 8, 2012, the Defendant imposed and notified property tax of KRW 20,308,690 (including local education tax of KRW 3,109,220) on the land portion. Among them, the portion of heavy taxation due to the instant main points is KRW 9,108,730, and the Plaintiff directly received the notice on the date of the said imposition.

(f) Imposition of property tax on a building in 2013;

On June 18, 2013, the Defendant imposed and notified property tax on the portion of the building (including local resource facility tax of 3,122,740 won, local education tax of 3,609, and local education tax of 3,609,450 won). Among them, the amount of heavy taxation is 11,147,170 won.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the property tax of 20,308,690 won (including local education tax of 3,109, 220 won) from August 8, 2012 among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, even with the filing period.

On the other hand, Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a lawsuit seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, such as this case, shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, etc., and that the Plaintiff directly received the notice of the property tax on the same day, as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of disposition 1 and 2 as stated in the attached Table 1 of the Ivoking.

6. 28. Records that added this part of the lawsuit to the application form for modification of the purport and cause of the claim.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit shall be deemed unlawful because the period of filing the lawsuit stipulated in Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act is too excessive. Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits pointing this out has merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each disposition Nos. 1, 2, and 4 written in the list of attached taxation dispositions is conducted on the premise that the main points of this case are entertainment workers, and since the main points of this case did not have entertainment workers, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful on the opposite premise.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Table-related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 28(5)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides for the following types of entertainment tavern business that is subject to the imposition of acquisition tax and property tax under Article 13(5) and Article 111(1) of the Local Tax Act. Since Article 28(5)4 of the Local Tax Act provides for 1/100 or more of the exclusive use area of entertainment bars and 5/100 or more of the entertainment bars and 2/100 of the total entertainment bars and 2/100 of the entertainment bar business, the standard for determining whether the entertainment bar is subject to this case’s entertainment bar business is included in 6/10 or more, and the purpose of this case’s entertainment bar business is to provide for 2/10 or more of the total entertainment bar business, and it is to provide for 2/10 or more of the entertainment bar facilities for 2/100 or more of the total entertainment bar business, and it is to provide for 2/100 or more of the entertainment bar facilities for 2/3/4.

In other words, external signboards are installed, 2. The employees of the Suwon-gu Office are June 2012.

19. As to the main points of this case, only one female under the influence of alcohol and one male at the time of conducting a field investigation, and the female does not confirm whether they are entertainment reception reception workers, and no other circumstance exists to deem that there was female entertainment reception reception workers, and ③ in the main points of this case, C operated the main points of this case in the main points of this case using 18 guest rooms from the main points of this case to the main points of this case. The defendant did not focus on the acquisition tax and property tax on the ground that the above main points are business establishments which do not employ entertainment reception reception workers. ④ In light of the fact that the main points of this case are mainly a name list used by female customers, and in the case of heading straw, it cannot be said that the main points of this case are women entertainment reception workers.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of the disposition No. 3 in the separate sheet of taxation is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition No. 1, 2, and 4 in the same list is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Doo

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent