[지방세부과처분취소][판례집불게재]
Hong Kong and three others (Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
April 7, 1982
The imposition of registration tax against the plaintiffs as of December 31, 1980 by the defendant, 4,840,819 won, 968,163 won, 380,023 won, 76,004 won, and 3,562,845 won, shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
disposition(However, the date of taxation disposition is January 8, 1981)
On December 31, 1980 (the date of taxation by the plaintiffs stated in the purport of this case on January 8, 1981), but it is clear that the plaintiffs were erroneous in the entries in the purport of this case on December 31, 1980, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and subparagraph 2, subparagraph 8-3, subparagraph 1, 2, and 3 (each receipt), subparagraph 1, 13-2, subparagraph 1, subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3, subparagraph 4 (registration certificate), subparagraph 4, subparagraph 5 (registration certificate) of the same Article, and subparagraph 7 (registration certificate) of the same Article, and subparagraph 9 (registration certificate) of the same Article were not entered in the list of non-party 2, and the purport of the above provisional registration No. 97).
The plaintiffs asserted that the part of the building of this case was used as a factory prior to the acquisition of the above real estate by the plaintiffs, and the above factory was newly constructed or succeeded regardless of the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs did not receive an indication from the non-party Park Park Jong-dae that the above part of the building was illegally occupied by the Dong, the taxation of this case based on the premise that the plaintiffs newly constructed or expanded the factory in the above part of the building was illegal. The defendant asserted that the non-party Park Jong-dae newly established or expanded the factory in the above part of the building, and therefore, the tax disposition of this case was lawful.
Article 112 (3) of the Local Tax Act provides that the acquisition tax rate for acquiring any taxable object for business to newly build or extend a factory in a large city as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be 50/100 of the tax rate under paragraph (1) (20/1,00). According to Article 138 (1) 4 of the same Act, when real estate registration of the new establishment or extension of a factory in a large city is made, it shall be 5 times of the relevant tax rate (30/1,00) as provided in Article 131. Article 18 (2) of the same Act provides that the tax rate for the new establishment or extension of a factory in a large city shall be 5 years from the date on which the initial payment period for the new construction or extension of a factory shall be 5 years from the date on which the new construction or alteration of a new factory shall be made, and Article 188 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the new establishment or alteration of a new factory shall be 20/100 of the existing factory.
However, according to the above evidence No. 4-2, evidence No. 5-2, evidence No. 7-2, evidence No. 12-1, and evidence No. 12-2, each of which is no dispute over the establishment of the above evidence No. 12-3, and evidence No. 11, No. 14 (each reply), evidence No. 9-1, No. 9-2 (each lease agreement) presumed to be established by the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-chul, and evidence No. 9-1, No. 1, No. 9-2 (each lease agreement), the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate list, and the latter owner of the building was no longer entitled to receive the above evidence No. 9-1, and the latter owner of the building was no longer entitled to receive the above evidence No. 1, and the latter owner of the building no later than 1, 1978-1, and the latter owner of the building no later than 1, 1980.
Therefore, since the taxation disposition of this case cannot be exempt from revocation due to its illegality, the plaintiffs' claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant.
April 21, 1982
Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge)