beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
The acquisition tax against the plaintiff on June 11, 2013 19,509.
Reasons
1. In the first instance trial on June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 19,509,110, local education tax of KRW 1,676,320, and KRW 22,037,550, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff, and KRW 22,037,550, totaling KRW 852,120. The court of first instance revoked the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 19,509,110, and KRW 5,170,020, additional tax of KRW 1,676,320, additional tax of KRW 254,260, and special rural education tax of KRW 852,120, and dismissed the remaining claims.
Therefore, since only the plaintiff has lodged an appeal against the losing part, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the acquisition tax of KRW 14,339,09,090, the principal tax of KRW 14,676,320, the local education tax of KRW 1,422,060, and the imposition of the principal tax of KRW 852,870, the special rural development tax of KRW 852,120, which is the part against the plaintiff.
2. The court's explanation concerning this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding evidence No. 8 to the part No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance (which is the ground for recognition). Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that the court’s explanation about this part is as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is acceptable.
In the notice of tax payment regarding the instant disposition, the instant disposition on the instant disposition by asserting the illegality of the instant tax payment notice, the taxable object was indicated as “the 253m20, 1566m2, 253 m20,000,000 m2,000,000 m2,000,000 m2,00,000,000.”