Costs of lawsuit after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal: The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The part of the imposition disposition of KRW 8,00,000,000 among the imposition disposition of KRW 46,363,550 against the Plaintiff on July 18, 200, KRW 8,000,000 among the imposition disposition of KRW 4,636,350, and KRW 46,363,550, and KRW 8,000,000 among the imposition disposition of KRW 46,363,550, and KRW 9,272,710, among the imposition disposition of KRW 1,60,00,000, shall be revoked.

A. On June 5, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased, from Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty of the judgment of the Supreme Court), the 221-dong Do-dong 221 Undong-dong, Seongdong-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) the purchase price of KRW 400 million.

B. The Plaintiff intended to report acquisition tax, etc. to the Defendant with the acquisition value of KRW 400,00,000,000. However, since the above reported value falls short of the current base value ( KRW 2,318,177,720), the tax base of the acquisition tax and registration tax of the instant real estate in July 18, 2008, according to the administrative guidance given by public officials belonging to the Defendant, to the effect that the said reported value should be based on the above current base value, the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be calculated on July 18, 2008, and KRW 46,363,50 (10% of the acquisition tax), the special rural development tax and special rural development tax, KRW 4,636,350 (10% of the acquisition tax), and the local education tax 9,272,710 (20% of the registered tax amount) shall be reported by the Defendant as of August 18, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff did not pay the acquisition tax and the special rural development tax within the above payment period. On September 11, 2008, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of acquisition tax of 46,683,450 won (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of 4,668,340 won (including additional taxes).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 3 through 8 (including paper numbers), non-party 2's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition

Since the defendant asserts that the part of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful since it was filed after the filing period of the lawsuit, the tax base, acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. is determined specifically by the taxpayer's filing of the tax base and tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64340, Jan. 13, 2006). Meanwhile, Article 72 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that if the taxpayer files a tax return, the tax return shall be deemed to have been made at the time of the filing of the tax return. The above tax return shall be deemed to include a non-payment return (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du5955, Feb. 9, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, the acquisition tax, etc. in this case shall be deemed to have been imposed on July 18, 2008, which is the date of the filing of the report, and the plaintiff was aware that the above taxation disposition was made on the same day, and the part in this case shall be deemed to have been unlawful after the lapse of the period of 100.

3. Determination on the part of the claim for nullification of the disposition of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is null and void due to a serious and obvious defect as follows.

(1) On August 28, 2007, Nonparty 1, who was the former owner of the instant real estate, acquired the instant real estate by winning the bid at KRW 352,510,000 during the voluntary auction procedure. The Plaintiff purchased it from Nonparty 1 on June 5, 2008, and received a certificate of completion of report after filing a report on real estate transaction to the Defendant. In the instant disposition, if the standard market price, which is not the reported price, is the base of the instant disposition, is against the balance with Nonparty 1, who paid acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. calculated with the tax base of KRW 352,510,00,00 for the above successful bid price, the instant real estate transaction in question goes against the principle of equity with Nonparty 1, who has paid acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. calculated with the tax base of KRW 352,510,000 for the above successful bid price, business of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Real Property Transaction Report Act”), and thus, the reported and payment amount of acquisition Tax should not be deemed a voluntary report or payment.

(2) Even though the Defendant recognized the actual market price reported with respect to the instant real estate and issued a certificate of completion of report on a real estate transaction contract, it would be contrary to the preceding act and thus be contrary to the principle of trust protection to deny the above reported value and to require the Defendant to report the acquisition tax, etc. as tax base.

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the value at the time of acquisition (registration) which serves as the tax base for acquisition tax and registration tax shall be the reported value by the acquisitor. If reported value is below the current base value, it shall be based on such current base value, and as to the acquisition (registration) which is verified under Article 28 of the Report on Real Estate Transactions Act by submitting a report under Article 27 of the same Act, notwithstanding this, it shall be based on the actual acquisition price (Articles 111(2), 111(5)5, and 130(2) and (3) of the Local Tax Act). As alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that there was a verification as prescribed by the Report on Real Estate Transactions Act concerning the real estate transaction in this case, and it cannot be deemed that there was a defect in the disposition in this case because there is no other evidence to view that the above verification was made, and it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the legal relations or factual relations of an administrative agency, even if there is no room for misunderstanding that the above provision cannot be applied to the above legal basis of law.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit for revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims in the court of first instance are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)