A. The Plaintiff, etc. and B acquired each of the corresponding units of each of the instant units of each of the instant units of the attached Table 1. List 1, which is a partitioned building of the said building, from the selling company of Suwon-si Ctel (hereinafter “instant building”) during the period from October 2015 to January 2016, the Plaintiff, etc. and the seller of each of the units of each of the instant units of each building (hereinafter “each of the instant units of real estate”).

B. The Plaintiff, etc. and B paid acquisition tax amounting to 40/1,000 (tax rate under Article 11(1)7 (b) of the Local Tax Act) of the acquisition value to the Defendant upon receipt of a sale order on each of the instant real estate.

C. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff et al. asserted that on March 18, 2016, each of the instant real estate against each of the Defendant constitutes a residential facility, not a business facility, and thus, Article 11(1)7 (b) of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”) should be applied at the time of acquisition, not the tax rate of Article 11(1)7 (b) of the Local Tax Act, but the tax rate (10/1,000) applicable to the housing whose value is not more than 60 million won (hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”), and each of the acquisition tax claims were filed.

D. Accordingly, on March 21, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the refusal of the acquisition tax’s request for correction on April 8, 2016 (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

E. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and B filed a tax appeal seeking the revocation of each of the instant dispositions with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss each of the said claims on September 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff (appointed)'s assertion

As the Plaintiff and B received each of the instant real estate in lots, they paid acquisition tax applying 40/1,00 of the tax rate under the said provision on the premise that each of the instant real estate constitutes “real estate other than farmland” under Article 11(1)7(b) of the Local Tax Act.

However, since the building of this case was partitioned into a living room, main room, restaurant, bed room, bed room, etc. from the time of construction of the building of this case, the selling company advertised each of the real estate of this case as a residential officetel, and all of the real estate of this case under the management rules for the building of this case is stipulated to be used only for residential purpose, each of the real estate of this case constitutes a residential officetel. In the case of property tax, the residential officetel is subject to tax rates different from the office officetel, the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act, the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Income Tax Act clearly separate from the office officetels. According to the amended Housing Act and the Si Housing Act, each of the real estate of this case constitutes a quasi-housing under the Housing Act.

Nevertheless, the defendant, as an officetel, deemed that the provisions of this case were not applicable to each real estate of this case which actually constitutes a house, was unlawful against the taxation equity and the taxation principle.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2. The entry is as shown in Annex 2.

C. Determination

1) The former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Local Tax Act") provides that "in case of acquiring a house with no separate definition on "house", the tax rate of 10/1,000 for acquiring a house with 60 million won or less, the tax rate of 20/1,000 for acquiring a house with 60 million won or more, and the tax rate of 30/1,00 for acquiring a house with 90 million won or more, shall apply respectively."

In order to clarify the purpose of legislation, Article 11 (1) 8 of the Local Tax Act amended by Act No. 13427, Jul. 24, 2015, "Housing" was newly established as defined in the definition of "Housing" in Article 2 (1) of the Housing Act, "Housing is recorded as a house in the building ledger under Article 38 of the Building Act, and is used as a residential building for the purpose of use of the building."

2) According to the facts stated in Eul evidence No. 9 as to whether each real estate of this case constitutes "house" under the provision of this case, it can be recognized that each of the real estate of this case is stated as "business facilities (officetel)" in the aggregate building ledger.

According to the above facts, each of the instant real estate constitutes "quasi-housing under Article 2 subparagraph 1-2 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 14093, Mar. 22, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "former Housing Act"), Article 2-2 subparagraph 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27115, Apr. 29, 2016); Article 3-5 [Attachment Table 1] subparagraph 14(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26947, Feb. 11, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "quasi-housing under subparagraph 1-2 of Article 2 of the former Housing Act"), and it does not constitute "house in the building ledger" under Article 2 subparagraph 1-2 of the former Housing Act, and it does not constitute "house under the provision of this case."

Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff (appointed party) based on the premise that each real estate of this case constitutes "house" under the provision of this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiff (Appointed Party) of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gyeong-tae

Judges' heavy defects