beta
Text
1. The disposition of imposition of either the aggregate land tax or the property tax and the local education tax that accrue from 2003 to 2013 among the lawsuit of this case.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant imposed and notified the aggregate land tax or property tax and local education tax (hereinafter referred to as “property tax, etc.”) from 2003 to 2016 on the land size of 241.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).
B. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the imposition of KRW 1,401,150, including property tax, etc. for the year 2014, but the appeal was dismissed on April 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the part on the revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as the aggregate land tax and property tax for the year 2003 through 2013 among the lawsuit in this case, and whether the part on the revocation of the additional charges for the property tax, etc. for the year
A. The lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, property tax, etc. for the period from 2003 to 2013 shall be filed within 90 days from the date of becoming aware of such disposition (Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act), and each disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, property tax, etc. for the period from 2003 to 2013 shall be deemed to have been known at the latest at the time of each payment. Since it is apparent that the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 17, 2015 with the limit of 90 days from the lawsuit in this case, it is unlawful as it was filed with the limit of the period of filing the lawsuit.
B. The Plaintiff seeking revocation of the surcharge on the property tax, etc. reverted to year 2015, in addition to the imposition disposition on property tax, etc. reverted to year 2015, the Plaintiff also sought revocation of the surcharge of KRW 44,200. However, if the national tax is not paid by the due date, the additional surcharge under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act is naturally generated under the law without the due date of payment, and thus the notification