2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-2, each of the parties' evidences 1, 2, and 3.

A. On November 23, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with a company for new construction, sale, or improvement of a house, and entered into a construction contract with a company for construction work with a 138,152,82,803 won for an apartment of 3 stories underground and 1,395 households on the ground of 587, 264.7m2 on the land of 587, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and 25-28m2, and for construction work with a 138,152,982,803m2 on the ground of 25-28m2 on the ground. On December 17, 2004, the Plaintiff changed the construction price into 134,887,010,016 won. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18574, Dec. 17, 2004>

B. On December 18, 2004, the Plaintiff received a pre-use inspection from the head of Busan Jin-gu with respect to the above apartment.

C. The Plaintiff reported and paid the acquisition tax and special tax for rural development on January 17, 2005, and the registration tax and local education tax on February 16, 2006, respectively, on the basis of the tax base of KRW 85,157,342,905, excluding the allowances for retirement benefits, 213,54,277, and the allowances for retirement benefits for the employees of lot construction, including KRW 2,747,09,00,000, and KRW 2,747,095,170.

D. On January 13, 2006, the Defendant, after undergoing a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, filed a correction and notification to the Plaintiff for additional payment of KRW 6,647,305,370 (including additional taxes) based on the tax base, based on the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 91,804,645,514, which is not included in the allowance for repair of defects and the allowance for severance and retirement benefits in the tax base for acquisition tax, etc. on the said apartment (hereinafter “instant disposition”). < Amended by Act No. 173,93,310, KRW 5,381,81,00, KRW 694,720, KRW 12,755,370 (including additional taxes).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to be included in the tax base of acquisition tax, the allowance for repair of defects is either deemed to have been paid at the price of a taxable object itself or equivalent to the cost that arises or determined before the time of acquisition of the taxable object. (1) In light of such concept, the allowance for repair of defects paid by the Plaintiff is the allowance for the preliminary installation of the object of taxation in order to fulfill the obligation to repair defects that may arise in the future after the acquisition of the object of taxation; and (2) in order to acquire the object of taxation, the allowance for repair of defects cannot be deemed to have been paid directly or indirectly after the acquisition of the object of taxation, and even if the allowance for repair of defects is deemed to have been paid as the acquisition cost, only 22,536,430 won should be included in the acquisition price of the object of taxation and the full amount of the allowance for repair of defects shall not be included in the acquisition price. (3) Since it is necessary to appropriate the increased portion of the allowance for repair of defects arising from the expiration of the tax year in accordance with the accounting principle, even if the actual payment of retirement allowance is made, and it is also unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 111(5)3 of the former Local Tax Act provides that the tax base of acquisition tax shall be the actual acquisition price if the acquisition price is proved by corporate accounting books, and Article 82-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Acquisition Tax Act provides that the acquisition price, which is the tax base of acquisition tax, refers to all expenses paid or to be paid to other parties or a third party in order to acquire the relevant goods prior to the date of acquisition of taxable objects, and Article 73(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Acquisition Tax Act provides that the date of issuance of the approval for use in a building constructed after obtaining a building permit (if it is actually used before the date of issuance of the approval for use or the date of the approval for temporary use

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaintiff corporation's evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it can be acknowledged that the external cost account and the construction cost statement of the plaintiff corporation's corporation's account are indicated as the payment of the construction cost in full between January 1, 2002 and June 29, 2004 as the beneficiary of the construction project, and the construction cost of the above apartment is indicated as the construction cost of the above apartment, and the construction of the above apartment and its appurtenant facilities were constructed and delivered to the plaintiff by the construction of the above apartment and its appurtenant facilities, and accordingly the plaintiff acquired the above apartment and received the inspection for use. Thus, in principle, since the construction cost paid by the plaintiff falls under the cost required for the acquisition of the above apartment, it shall be deemed as the tax base.

In addition, even if the Construction Costs were to be paid by the Plaintiff after receiving the payment for the construction from the Plaintiff, it is nothing more than setting the said payment for the construction costs that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff while using the payment for the construction costs as required, and it does not change the Plaintiff’s payment for the construction costs. Since there is a situation that the Plaintiff should bear the expenses for the repair of defects in relation to the above apartment as completed by the Construction, it is possible and reasonable to set the amount for the payment for the repair of defects as an estimated and ordinary amount of the expenses for the repair of defects. However, it is deemed that the accumulation of the retirement allowances in advance according to the period of work of the workers to prepare for the retirement benefits to be paid to the employees in the future was converted into the current cost and included in the construction cost. Although the Construction did not pay the payment for the repair of defects as an insurance premium for the defect repair as of the present time, it cannot be viewed as the payment for the construction costs directly related to the above apartment construction or the payment for the entire construction costs.

Unlike this, the plaintiff's assertion that the above allowance was not related to the plaintiff's acquisition of the above apartment is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)