logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.15 2017구합24594
재산세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of establishing and operating sports facilities (golf courses) and ancillary facilities.

B. On November 15, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired a total of 3,098,193 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) out of 183 and 106 square meters in total, which are land for a membership golf course in the real estate auction process.

C. On September 19, 2017, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the property tax on the land of this case for the following reasons at KRW 2,035,238,560, by applying the heavy tax rate (40/100 of the tax base for a golf course: land for a golf course) prescribed in Article 111(1)1(c) of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 15292, Dec. 26, 2017; hereinafter the same) to the heavy tax rate prescribed in Article 111(1)1(c) of the Local Tax

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). According to the evidence No. 3, the Defendant, on September 19, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the determination of KRW 1,017,619,280 of property tax and KRW 201,485,820 of local education tax (tax number 0145, October 10, 2017) and KRW 1,017,619,280 of property tax and KRW 201,485,810 of local education tax and KRW 201,485,810 of local education tax.

(Tax Number No. 00234, November 24, 2017). Accordingly, it can be known that property tax was imposed in total by KRW 2,035,238,560.

"The land of this case constitutes "land for golf course use under Article 13 (5)" under Article 106 (1) 3 (c) of the Local Tax Act. "The land of this case constitutes "land for golf course use under Article 13 (5)" has no dispute, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments of Gap's subparagraphs 1 through

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. According to Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7013, Dec. 30, 2003) amended by Act No. 5615, Dec. 31, 1998, the Plaintiff’s assertion was subject to heavy taxation of acquisition tax only when the golf course is registered as sports facility business pursuant to the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) with the relevant facilities.

Accordingly, it.

arrow