본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.05 2015구합65132

1. The Defendant’s additional tax of KRW 91,052,730, and the special rural development tax of KRW 9,105,250, respectively, imposed on the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013.


1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of recreational condominium business in a tourist accommodation business with respect to D recreational condominiums newly built on the wife population C and 48 parcels at Chicago-si on December 13, 2010 (hereinafter “instant condominiums”).

B. On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff sold No. 301 among the instant condominiums (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Nonparty Company to KRW 770,384,180 (excluding value-added tax), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 24, 201.

C. On May 24, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, etc. calculated by applying the standard tax rate (4%) stipulated in Article 11(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11137, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) to the acquisition of the instant real estate.

However, on December 3, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the instant real estate constitutes “a villa” under Article 13(5)1 of the former Local Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff used the instant real estate exclusively or exclusively for the purpose of relaxation, summering, play, etc. as a residential building, and imposed KRW 100,157,980 in total,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is calculated by applying the heavy tax rate (16%) under the said provision, on the ground that the instant real estate was used exclusively for the purpose of relaxation, summering, and play.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff had no choice but to purchase the instant real estate at the Plaintiff’s request of a joint-use construction company (hereinafter “joint-use construction”), which is a subcontractor who subcontracted the electrical construction to the Plaintiff, and E, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was the same from the time of its acquisition.