logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.08 2016구합8734
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. Acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 16, 2014 by the Defendant, 19,298,890 won, special rural development tax, 924,200 won, and local education tax.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2013, the Plaintiff donated a building of 453.38 square meters on the fourth floor above 444 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building”) from Acement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Acement”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 19th day of the same month.

B. The Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to Article 63(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the instant building constitutes “real estate acquired to use directly for cargo transportation services under Article 9(1)1 of the Korea Railroad Corporation Act.”

C. However, on September 16, 2014, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff leased the instant building to Ashement, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 19,298,890, special rural development tax, special rural development tax, KRW 924,200, local education tax, KRW 1,386,310, which was calculated as the tax base pursuant to Article 21 of the Local Tax Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff falls under the grounds for additional collection under subparagraph 1 of Article 94 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (where such building is not used directly for the relevant business without justifiable grounds until one year from the date of acquisition thereof).

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On April 12, 2016, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 2 through 4, 7 evidence, Eul’s 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned is a real estate acquired by the Plaintiff for the use of cargo transportation services under Article 9(1)1 of the Korea Railroad Corporation Act and leased it to Acement, and is directly under Article 63(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.

arrow