logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.06.09 2014구합21880
취득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff UPS error-backed securitization company shall dismiss the lawsuit;

2. The plaintiff corporation.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On or before January 1, 2014, the enforcement date of the amended Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”); the Plaintiff Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Korea Land Trust”) entered into a real estate trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) with respect to the land and buildings (hereinafter “instant trust property”) under the Trust Act, which are located in the real estate trust business, and completed the trust registration with respect to the instant trust property.

B. The Plaintiff UPS error-backed specialized company (hereinafter “Plaintiff UPS-based limited company”) is the first beneficiary under the instant trust agreement (a person eligible to receive preferential reimbursement of the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the disposal cost, trust remuneration, etc. from the proceeds of realizing trust assets, from the proceeds of realizing trust assets)

C. Pursuant to Article 107(1)3 of the amended Act and Article 17(1) of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1, Jan. 1, 2014); the Defendant imposed property tax on the Plaintiff, a trustee of the instant trust property; KRW 477,720 of the property tax on the building in July 5, 2014; KRW 440,440 of the local education tax; KRW 61,240 of the local education tax; and KRW 61,240 of the local education tax; and KRW 20,614,540 of the property tax on the building in 2014; local education tax; and KRW 790 of the local education tax on the land in September 2014, 2014; and KRW 20,614,540 of the property tax on the land in September 14, 2014, respectively.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Evidence 1, 2, and Eul’s Evidence 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the litigation of the Plaintiff UPS error limited company is legitimate;

(a) A person who is not the other party to an administrative disposition;

arrow