징수처분취소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of a total of 33,221 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) outside Pyeongtaek-gun, Gangwon-do, and four parcels, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax on the ground that it constitutes a business property of a small or medium start-up start-up enterprise. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s application and exempted acquisition tax on the said land.
On December 19, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of acquisition tax of KRW 10,159,200, local education tax of KRW 85,920, and special rural development tax of KRW 427,960 on the ground that “it was not used directly for the pertinent business within two years from the date of acquisition of the instant land without justifiable grounds.”
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On January 14, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay delinquent taxes, such as acquisition tax, etc., and notified the Plaintiff of the demand. On January 22, 2015, the instant disposition of seizure on the said land was rendered.
On April 7, 2017, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the amount of delinquent local education tax of KRW 10,159,20, acquisition tax of KRW 3,596,340, local education tax of KRW 855,920, local education tax of KRW 302,960, additional tax of KRW 427,960, special rural development tax of KRW 427,960, additional tax of KRW 12,830, May 2, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant demand”). On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection with the Gangwon-do Governor on July 3, 2017, but was dismissed. On January 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that “an objection filed by the Plaintiff after the expiration of the period for request, which is illegal and illegal, and that a request for a trial that
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, and the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings as to the disposition of this case was not served with the notice or notice of taxation in relation to the disposition of this case. On June 14, 2017, the plaintiff visited Jong Chang-gun Office and became aware of the disposition of this case late.
The demand of this case is legitimate.