2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that was divided and established in the Republic of Korea on March 31, 2009.

B. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 30, 2009 in the name of the plaintiff on the ground of the company division on March 31, 2009, on the 23,801.4m of Miscellaneous land 1352 Miscellaneous land, Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, which is the owner of the Hawon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the land in this case").

C. On April 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for local tax reduction or exemption and did not pay each tax stated in the purport of the application on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land due to a division satisfying the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 46(1) of the Corporate Tax

D. After conducting a tax investigation on October 20, 201, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 103,530,05,040 on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land and did not continue the business succeeded from a divided corporation by the end of the business year which included the registration date of the division, on April 11, 2011, on the following grounds: (a) the acquisition value of the instant real estate was imposed of KRW 3,687,779,90; and (b) the special rural development tax of KRW 10,353,050; (c) the registration tax of KRW 77,648,020; and (d) the local education tax of KRW 14,423,260; and (d) KRW 205

E. On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review, and the head of Busan Metropolitan City was non-adopted on March 22, 2011, and both the Plaintiff’s objection and the request for tax trial were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 1-1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff continued to conduct the business succeeded from the Plaintiff, a corporation, by the end of the business year to which the registration date of the division belongs, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it misleads the facts.

2) The instant disposition, which was retroactively collected by the Plaintiff even though there was no additional collection provision under the Act on Special Cases concerning Tax Restriction at the time of reduction of registration tax, etc., was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether reduction or exemption requirements are met

A) Articles 119(1)10 and 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010) stipulate that “The registration of assets acquired through division meeting the requirements under each subparagraph of Article 46(1) of the Corporate Tax Act shall be exempted from acquisition and registration taxes in the case of corporate division.” Article 46(1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010); Article 46(1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “Where a domestic corporation which has engaged in business continuously for 5 years or more as of the date of registration of division; (2)10 and 120(1)9 of the divided corporation or extinguished counterpart corporation to a division and merger are stocks acquired by stockholders of the divided corporation or extinguished counterpart corporation to the division and merger at the ratio of stocks owned by the surviving corporation or extinguished counterpart corporation to the division.

As above, the exemption of registration tax and acquisition tax from a corporation established through division under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means that a divided corporation continues to use the property used for its business in a case where the divided corporation acquires it and continues to use it for the business succeeded to by the corporation established through division, considering the homogeneity between the divided corporation and the newly established corporation, and the continuity of the business. Thus, in order for the corporation established through division to be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, the corporation acquired the property used for the business continuously for five years or more as of the registration date of the division, and directly used for the business succeeded to by the end date of the business year to which the registration date of the division belongs, and directly used the land for the business. The business operator directly used the land for the business refers to the acquisition of the land in question, such as the commencement of civil works with authorization and permission for the business, and it does not include the case where the business operator enters into a service contract

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through Gap evidence Nos. 9, which were included in the instant case’s return, 1.2, 29. After the acquisition of the instant land, Gohap Co., Ltd. entered into a service contract for the design of landfill facilities, survey and geological survey, alteration of contents of consultation, authorization and permission, and not directly using the instant land for waste disposal business. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 4. 209 the Plaintiff established through division on March 31, 2009 the Plaintiff’s project operator’s application for the above service contract was entered into on April 30, 2009 and entered into a service contract for the design, survey, and geological survey, alteration of contents of consultation, and submission of an implementation plan for the instant land to the Busan Free Economic Zone Administrator on March 10, 2010 and the scheduled date of application for the approval of the implementation plan to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2015.

As above, insofar as the Plaintiff did not accept an application for permission or permission on the instant land, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff used the instant land for its own business without entering into a service contract for the design of landfill facilities, measurement, geological survey, civil engineering and design, etc. to establish a waste reclamation site on the instant land, and insofar as the Plaintiff did not file only a written application for designation of an urban planning facility project operator and an implementation plan until December 31, 2009, which is the end of the business year to which the date of the registration of the merger belongs, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have used the instant land directly for the business succeeded to the instant land. Accordingly, the instant land does not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax and registration tax under Articles 119(1)10 and 120(1)9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Judgment on the assertion of retroactive collection

The provision for collecting the exempted acquisition tax and registration tax, if the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which was in force at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land, is exempted from the acquisition tax and registration tax for the property acquired by corporate division satisfying the requirements of each subparagraph of Article 46(1) of the Corporate Tax Act

However, according to the above relevant laws and regulations, in order to be exempted from the acquisition tax and registration tax on the property acquired through corporate division as in this case, the corporation established through division shall continue to run the business succeeded from the divided corporation by the end of the business year which includes the registration date of the division. Whether such requirements are met is unknown at the time of acquisition of the property, and it is finalized only after the end of the business year to which the registration date of

However, the collection of acquisition tax and registration tax exempted under Articles 119 and 120 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act requires changes in individual circumstances at the time of acquisition of property, which already meet the requirements for exemption, such as using or disposing of the property acquired for other purposes, and where it is impossible to ascertain whether the requirements for exemption were met as in the instant case, the tax authorities may confirm whether the requirements for exemption were met after the end of the business year to which the date of the registration of the division belongs, and if the requirements for exemption are not satisfied, the taxpayer may apply for exemption and pay the unpaid acquisition tax and registration tax. Such a disposition of exemption differs from the collection of acquisition tax and registration tax which are already exempted for reasons that the requirements for exemption are not met from the beginning to the beginning, and thus, it does not require additional collection provisions that are the requirements for individual circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Doo

Judges Senior Superintendent and Senior Superintendent

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.