취득세 등 부과처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, a small and medium enterprise engaged in the manufacture and sale of cosmetics, etc., acquired on December 14, 2010 the counter-party 146-8 Bdong 103 and 104 of the same underground space (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), and subsequently, acquired on December 14, 2010, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to the main sentence of Article 7(2) of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of the Gyeonggi-do Tax (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 4295, Dec. 26, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”) on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired by a small and medium enterprise owner for the first time by sale from the establisher of a knowledge industry center for the purpose of running the business or venture business under Article 28-5(1)1 and 2 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act.
B. After that, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of acquisition tax of KRW 11,532,380 on the instant real estate, special rural development tax, KRW 11,532,380 on October 16, 2014, registration tax of KRW 11,532,380 on the instant real estate, and local education tax of KRW 2,120,580 on the ground that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Fura course Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sura”) and used it for other purposes within five years from the acquisition date.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 19, 2014, but the said appeal was dismissed on May 27, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff and the non-party company asserted that the plaintiff and the non-party company leased the real estate of this case to the non-party company, since they are operated by the same representative director as well.
Even if it is used for other purposes, it is considered to be used.