logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.10.21 2014구합6500
취득세부과처분취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 16, 2009, when acquiring real estate C in Yangcheon-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff and B reported and paid the Defendant the registration tax of KRW 33,00,000,000, and the local education tax of KRW 39,600,000, and the acquisition tax of KRW 33,000,000, and the special rural development tax of KRW 36,30,000,000, and the special rural development tax of KRW 36,30,000,000, which was unpaid, and paid the acquisition tax of KRW 36,909,840 (=36,54,540,000,000, including the additional tax for arrears from the Defendant on July 10, 2009) by December 36, 2009.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, around December 2009, filed an application for reduction or exemption with the Defendant by deeming that the instant real estate was acquired to establish and operate a welfare facility for the aged, and the Defendant, in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Reduction or Exemption of Market Price, returned the amount of KRW 15,840,00 (=registration tax of KRW 13,200,000, Local Education Tax of KRW 2,640,000, and acquisition tax of KRW 15,840,000, and KRW 13,754,000).

C. On March 10, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that D, other than the Plaintiff, operated the Medical Care Center on the instant real estate. On June 10, 2011, the Defendant additionally imposed KRW 16,097,40, local education tax, total of KRW 19,316,80, including penalty tax, and KRW 16,097,40,00, including penalty tax, on the amount of tax imposed prior to the Plaintiff on the revocation of the imposition, and KRW 16,097,40,00, including penalty tax. The Plaintiff fully paid the amount by January 17, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s defense and determination before the merits made a refund to the Defendant in 2009, among ① the registration tax, local education tax and reporting already filed and paid to the Defendant, but the acquisition tax and special rural development tax imposed by the Defendant on the unpaid wind.

arrow