Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap47091 (Law No. 19, 2012)

Seocho 2010Ch2413 (Law No. 9.20, 2010)

The revised Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act does not violate the principle of no taxation without law or double taxation prohibition.

The amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof do not unreasonably reduce the amount of property subject to deduction, but have improved the unreasonable deduction of excess amount of property tax pursuant to the previous laws, and thus are regulations to achieve the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of tax equity. Therefore, it does not violate the principle of no taxation without law and the

Article 9 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2012Nu5949 Revocation of revocation of revocation of correction

XX Stock Company

The director of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap47091 Decided January 19, 2012

September 13, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection of correction of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2009 and special rural development tax in 000 won against the plaintiff on April 14, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is accepted on the grounds of the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (However, the "Fair Trade Price Ratio" of the 10th judgment seems to be erroneous in the "Fair Market Price Ratio" of the 10th judgment.

2. The plaintiff asserts that in the appellate court, "the amount equivalent to the property tax calculated according to the standard tax rate for property tax on the land portion or the tax base on the land portion or the aggregate and separate aggregate aggregate taxation x fair market price ratio of comprehensive real estate holding tax x fair market price ratio of property tax x standard tax rate x property tax x standard tax rate," the plaintiff's interpretation that "the amount equivalent to the property tax calculated according to the standard tax rate for property tax on the land portion or the aggregate and separate aggregate taxation x the amount of property tax x the fair market price ratio of comprehensive real estate holding tax x the fair market price ratio of property tax x the standard tax rate x the principle for prohibition of double taxation is contrary to the principle of prohibition of double taxation. If the issue of double taxation is not adjusted, the disposition of this case based on the above interpretation violates the principle of protection of trust. Thus, the amount equivalent to the property tax prescribed by the relevant provisions should be interpreted as the "amount of excess tax base x fair market price ratio x the standard tax rate".

However, as the judgment of the court of the first instance properly judges (No. 15 to No. 17 of the judgment of the court of the first instance), it violates the language and text of the amended Act and the amended Enforcement Decree, etc., and the property tax is excessively deducted. However, as alleged by the defendant, it is judged that the above revised Act conforms to the language and text of the amended Act and the comprehensive real estate holding tax 】 fair market price ratio 】 fair market price ratio 】 fair market price ratio 】 property tax rate 】 property tax rate 】 property tax rate x property tax rate 】 as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion based on a different premise is not acceptable even if the plaintiff considered all additional circumstances asserted by the court of this court.

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.