beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 9, 1971, the Plaintiff acquired and owned six parcels (23,875 square meters in total; hereinafter referred to as “contested land”). However, the key land was incorporated into a site for public-private partnership projects conducted by the head of the Seoul Regional Construction and Management of the Regional Construction and Management of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “project implementer”) under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”), and the Land Expropriation Decision by the Central Land Expropriation Committee was decided on April 23, 2015 as KRW 6,560,825,70, and the date of expropriation was decided on May 26, 2015. (b) The project implementer deposited the entire amount of compensation for the land under the name of the Plaintiff on May 18, 2015 as the date the Plaintiff refused to receive the said compensation and deposited the land in the name of the Plaintiff under the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction and Management of the Regional Construction and Management of the Regional Construction and Transportation Administration of the Republic of Korea.
On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff received deposit money, and on October 15, 2015, on which October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 1,649,389,539, and KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant by applying the tax rate prescribed under Article 92 of the Income Tax Act (including additional tax for unfaithful payment due to failure in filing a return) to the Defendant.
E. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Defendant was deposited, and the notification of deposit was not received. As such, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that, on October 14, 2015, an additional tax of KRW 1260,334,739 should be refunded among the transfer income tax returned and paid by the Plaintiff, the date of receipt of deposit should be deemed the transfer date. However, the Defendant rejected it on August 25, 2016.
(f) On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 29, 2016, but was dismissed on December 30, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] A.