Suwon District Court 2010Guhap8417 ( October 15, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du1665 (O. 31, 2010)

The rejection disposition such as comprehensive real estate holding tax on forest land preserved in its original form in the membership golf course is legitimate.

The Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act itself is not unconstitutional, but does not violate the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of no comprehensive delegation, and does not infringe on the constitutional equality and freedom of choice of occupation.

2011Nu9197 Revocation of Disposition rejecting to correct comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.

XX Development Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap8417 Decided February 15, 2011

November 1, 2011

January 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition rejecting the correction of the comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the year 2005 to 2007, which belongs to the plaintiff on November 24, 2008.

The reasoning for this case is that it is difficult for the court to judge that the land of this case is not subject to separate taxation under the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010) because it is difficult for the plaintiff to separate and separate taxation from the land of this case under Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1010, Mar. 31, 2010) because it is difficult for the plaintiff to view that the land of this case is subject to separate taxation under Article 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010) for the purpose of establishing separate taxation of the land of this case under Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Feb. 29, 200).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.