logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.07.05 2019나50196
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendants' incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are as follows: (a) except for the addition or supplement of the judgment specified in paragraph (2) as to the allegations emphasized or added by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this court; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) liability for damages regarding acquisition tax, etc. was made by leasing the instant land from the former owner until February 28, 2016, and the Plaintiff was practically unable to use the instant land for business purposes by constructing a new building on the instant land until one year has passed from the date of acquisition of the relevant land. Thus, Article 178 subparag. 1 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act constitutes “justifiable cause” under Article 178 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the Defendants were obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, such as acquisition tax, etc. collected additionally by the Plaintiff, and the amount of acquisition tax reduced or exempted by neglecting his/her duty of care without filing a report on “justifiable cause” so that acquisition tax reduced or exempted should not be collected additionally. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of damage, such as acquisition tax, etc. collected additionally. (2) As such, “justifiable cause” under Article 178 subparag. 1 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act includes not only external grounds that a taxpayer cannot use for the relevant purpose, but also internal reasons beyond the grace period.

In addition, when determining whether there is a justifiable reason, the person liable for tax payment should take full account of the legislative intent that does not impose acquisition tax in consideration of the public interest of the business performed by the person liable for tax payment, and the length of preparation period required for direct use in the intended business in light of the purpose of acquiring real estate.

arrow