logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.05.04 2017구합65975
취득세 등 부과처분 취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is the representative director of the corporation B (hereinafter referred to as "B").

B around December 2, 2013, around C, D (hereinafter referred to as “sellers”) and B concluded a contract for new construction works on three lots of land outside Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter referred to as “F Condominium”) with construction cost of KRW 3,930,348,80 (including value-added tax).

B had completed the construction work around July 2015, but did not receive KRW 878 million of the construction cost from the seller.

On August 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the seller on the first floor G of the instant building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the purchase price of KRW 2 billion, and both the date of payment of balance and the date of delivery (hereinafter “instant contract”) on August 27, 2016, and entered into a sales contract with the seller on “ August 27, 2016.” As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1.122 billion out of the purchase price of KRW 2 billion as security to the seller’s succession to the amount of the loan obligation of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”), and agreed to substitute the payment of the unpaid construction price, and the special agreement stated that “the Plaintiff shall complete the registration on the change of the debtor of the instant loan by December 31, 2016.”

On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the total acquisition tax of KRW 92,00,000,000,000, which was unpaid. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to collect acquisition tax of KRW 92,414,00 (including additional tax) from the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is not liable to pay acquisition tax since he/she failed to transfer the ownership of the real estate in this case on the wind that he/she could not pay acquisition tax because he/she had leased the real estate in this case and failed to pay acquisition tax as security deposit.

"On January 19, 2017, the defendant filed a claim for correction of the total acquisition tax of KRW 92,414,00 (including additional tax) on the defendant on January 19, 2017.

arrow