beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of the comprehensive construction business, mining, mining, and tin acid development business, etc. under subparagraph D and E of the Busan Annual Zone D, E.
On October 11, 2010, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation established for the purpose of production and processing, wholesale and retail, and mountain development, etc. related to forestry, fishery, and agriculture on the F and the first floor of Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and the first floor.
B. On October 10, 2017, as promoters (62.22%) at the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company invested in kind the 3,769 square meters of G forest in Suwon-gu, Busan, and 40,185 square meters of H forest, and 17 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) in kind in the Plaintiff.
C. On December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of KRW 78,273,80 with respect to the instant land acquired through investment in kind by the Defendant Company as its tax base, and KRW 90,01,00,00,000, totaling KRW 78,956,845,000 for special rural development tax, KRW 3,913,690 for special rural development tax, and KRW 7,827,380 for local education tax, and KRW 90,014,870 for local education tax, and thereafter, on December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that the instant land constitutes reduction and exemption of acquisition tax, etc. under Article 57-2(3)3 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 15222, Dec. 19, 2017).
However, the head of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, the disposing authority, issued a disposition of refusal to file a claim for correction by deeming that the Plaintiff did not receive the mining right established on the instant land (i.e., a non-permanentJ, hereinafter “intermediate mining right”) in addition to the Plaintiff’s investment in kind, and thus, the instant land alone does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff succeeded to an independent business division possible for business through investment in kind.” As of May 6, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a petition for adjudication with the Tax Tribunal (Seoul High Court Decision 2018Do825)
E. On September 1, 2018, the Tax Tribunal only determines that “the Plaintiff is only the instant land.”