불성실가산세등 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.
Details of the disposition
On November 29, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax and special tax for rural development calculated by applying 20/1,000 of the tax rate prescribed in Article 112(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”) to the Daejeon District Court’s support A and B real estate auction case.
On June 13, 2011, the Defendant permitted the location of the place of business of the instant building, the first floor of the instant building, the food service business, and the type of business as entertainment bar business.
On April 11, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of acquisition tax and special rural development tax (including additional tax on negligent tax returns 7,756,700 won, additional tax on additional tax for arrears 11,565,250 won) calculated by applying 100/1,00 of the tax rate under Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act to the acquisition tax and special rural development tax that deducts the amount paid by the Plaintiff from the acquisition tax and special rural development tax that are calculated by applying 100/1,00 of the tax rate under Article 112(2) of the same Act.
(2) The Plaintiff filed an objection on April 25, 2014, but was dismissed on June 30, 2014.
On June 9, 2014, the Defendant seized the instant building and site in order to collect KRW 58,105,510 in total and additional charges 2,440,400 from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s acquisition tax and special rural development tax.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant attachment disposition”. Accordingly, on June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of acquisition tax, special tax for rural development, and additional tax notified to the Defendant, and additional tax.
【In the absence of any dispute, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing additional dues in the lawsuit of this case is legitimate. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.