Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14146 decided May 1, 200

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

December 13, 2017

Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Guhap1402 Decided July 20, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the lawsuit in this case, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting correction as to the special rural development tax of 128,230 won is dismissed.

3. The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 5,183,390 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on September 13, 2016 shall be revoked.

4. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition of refusing to rectify the amount of acquisition tax on land against the Plaintiff, KRW 3,039,90, KRW 202,660, KRW 304,000, KRW 3546,650, and KRW 2,564,770, and registration license tax on the part of the building (acquisition tax) and KRW 2,564,770, and KRW 3,334,200, respectively, shall be revoked.

5. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition rejecting correction of KRW 128,230 of the Special Rural Development Tax for the Plaintiff on October 19, 2016 shall be revoked.

The purport of the Plaintiff’s refusal disposition is to seek for revocation of the excess amount by reducing registration and license tax of KRW 5,129,530, from KRW 5,129,530 as initially reported registration and license tax, and reducing from KRW 0 to KRW 2,564,760 as registration and license tax of KRW 5,129,530 as well as registration and license tax of KRW 2,564,760, which combines the nature of registration and license tax. ② The amount of the local education tax initially reported is reduced from KRW 1,025,90 as tax, and the amount of the local education tax of the same item of tax increases from KRW 0 to KRW 256,470 as tax amount.

In addition, the claim of the complaint states that the disposition of refusal of correction for the plaintiff's revocation is "(land portion) acquisition tax of 5,340,920 won, special rural development tax of 267,040 won, total of 5,142,50 won for local education tax of 6,129,50 won, and registration license tax of 5,129,530 won for local education tax of 1,025,90 won, and the disposition of refusal of correction for 6,15,430 won for local education tax of 6,15,430 won," but according to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the above amount is the total tax amount by the original reported object and item of tax. The plaintiff claims correction of the excess amount for the reason that the object and item of tax stated in Paragraph 4 of the disposition exceeds a legitimate tax amount, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the above disposition of refusal against the above claim is clearly made as the method of filing a correction request for the above tax amount.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 2012, the Nonparty: (a) completed the registration for the establishment of a new collective housing (multi-household housing) with the total floor area of KRW 700,000,000 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 700,000 with respect to the land ( Address 1 omitted) and KRW 565,00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “land”) for the land ( Address 2 omitted); and (b) commenced on November 26, 2012 with a construction permit granted for the construction of a five-story collective housing (multi-household housing) with the total floor area of KRW 642.38,00,00 on the instant land on July 9, 2012.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Yongsan Saemaeul District Court received a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant land and ( Address 2 omitted) land (hereinafter “instant auction”), and on October 20, 2014, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Nonparty as to the building under the said construction permit (hereinafter “instant building”) upon the entrustment of registration pursuant to the said decision.

C. In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff purchased each of the said real estate in a lump sum at KRW 390,00,000 (hereinafter “total sale price”), and paid the price on October 21, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

D. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 5,340,920, special rural development tax, KRW 267,040, local education tax, and KRW 534,090, which applied the acquisition tax rate of KRW 40/1,00 as stipulated under Article 11(1)7(b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14475, Dec. 27, 2016; hereinafter the same) with the tax base of KRW 133,523,247, which was calculated at the ratio of the standard market price among the total sale price, to the Defendant. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 256,476,753, which was calculated at the ratio of the standard market price among the total sale price, and applied the registration license tax of KRW 130,50,000, KRW 15,205, KRW 15,209, KRW 15,2005.

E. On June 8, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the additional construction in charge of KRW 280,500,000 on the instant building, and thereafter registered on the building ledger on June 10, 2016.

F. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff reported acquisition tax of 7,854,00 won, special rural development tax of 448,800 won, and local education tax of 561,00 won, and paid it on July 1, 2016, applying acquisition tax rate of 28/1,000 prescribed by Article 11(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act, based on the aforementioned tax base as the tax base for the portion of additional construction that was acquired upon approval for use.

G. However, on September 13, 2016 under the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the instant building only at the time when approval for use was granted, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that “the instant building shall be subject to the application of Article 15(2)7 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act,” which applied the base rate of KRW 256,476,753 corresponding to the part of the building out of the total sales price, on the ground that “The instant building shall be subject to the application of Article 15(2)7 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act” (hereinafter “instant acquisition tax imposition disposition”).

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 17, 2016, on the premise that the sale price of the instant building had already arrived at the time of the instant auction and that the acquisition by succession was caused by the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building; (b) on the premise that the acquisition or registration of the said building was subject to acquisition tax, not registration license tax; and (c) the legitimate tax amount on the acquisition is 2,564,760 won applied the acquisition tax rate of 10/100 as stipulated under Article 11(1)8 of the former Local Tax Act (hereinafter “the instant tax rate provisions”); (d) the acquisition tax rate of 128,230 won; (e) the special rural development tax; (e) the local education tax was 30 won; (e) the total amount of the acquisition tax and the special rural development tax reported to the Defendant; (e) the acquisition tax was 1,013,320 won; (e) the special rural development tax was 300 won; and (e) the tax was 36060 won, 4060 won.

H. Accordingly, on October 19, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal of the above request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff rendered a disposition of refusal of the above request for correction on the following grounds: “ insofar as the use approval was prior to the auction at the time of the instant auction and the acquisition time of the instant building has not yet arrived, acquisition tax cannot be imposed on the auction of the said building; provided, however, that the ownership transfer registration is subject to taxation, such as registration and license tax. In addition, the instant tax rate provisions are not applicable to the instant land appurtenant to the instant land for which the acquisition time has not arrived. Therefore, the amount of tax already reported is a legitimate tax amount.” (hereinafter referred to as “disposition of refusal of correction in the instant case”; and,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows: (a) each of the "Regulations on Reduction and Exemption" of Part IV and Part V of the Decision of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "Tax Rate Regulations"; and (b) each of the "Disposition of this case" of Part 12 of the same face shall be deemed to be "each Disposition of this case"; and (c) the corresponding part of the decision of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (d) the main sentence of

3. Ex officio determination as to whether the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting correction of the special rural development tax is legitimate

According to Article 50 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes and Article 11 of the Act on Special Rural Development and Article 50 (1) of the Act on Special Rural Development, a person who has filed a tax base report on special rural development tax, the principal tax of which is a local tax, by the statutory due date of return, may request the head

However, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for special rural development tax on the building portion is in the form of filing a claim for correction. However, the substance of the claim is only a new report seeking confirmation of liability for special rural development tax on the following grounds: (a) there is no initial tax return due to the establishment of liability for payment of registration license tax and special rural development tax, which is entirely separate from the registration license tax and special rural development tax already reported on the building in this case;

Therefore, this does not constitute a claim for correction seeking reduction on the original return, and unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant refused to receive an objection on the ground that the amount of KRW 128,230,000 was not liable for special rural development tax, and there is no benefit to dispute the same. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the portion of special rural development tax on the portion of the building among

4. Relevant statutes;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance [Article 1-B]. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Determination as to the legitimacy of the disposition imposing acquisition tax of this case

(a) Grounds, statutes, and issues of the disposition;

Article 30(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “The amount of acquisition tax on the acquisition of a building after construction of a building and acquisition thereof shall be calculated by applying the base rate of 20/1,000 for the acquisition time under Article 20 after the liability to pay registration and license tax on registration of transfer of ownership is established.” The main sentence of Article 20(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “where a building is constructed and acquired after construction of a building, the approval for use shall be issued (in cases of acquisition of a building before the issuance of the approval for use, the date of the approval for temporary use, and in cases of a building for which the approval for temporary use cannot be obtained, the date of the approval for temporary use or the date of actual use shall be deemed the date of the approval for temporary use, whichever comes earlier, and Article 34(1)2(a) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that “The registration and license tax shall be established when the right to property and other rights are registered.”

Therefore, this part of the issue is whether the time of acquisition of the building of this case arrives on the date of approval as alleged by the defendant, and ② whether the plaintiff's liability to pay registration and license tax is established on the date of transfer of ownership prior to the time

B. The time of acquisition of the building in this case

1) Article 34(1)1 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that "when acquiring an object of taxation," acquisition tax shall be liable to pay taxes. Article 6 subparag. 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "when acquiring an object of taxation by original acquisition." Article 6 subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that construction is defined as "construction by initial acquisition." Article 2(1)8 of the Building Act provides that construction is defined as "construction by new construction of land fixtures with a roof, columns, or walls," and Article 2(1)5 of the same Act provides that if a building satisfies the requirements of a building as an independent real estate with a minimum pole, roof, or fence, it is a legal principle established under the Civil Act even before the construction is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007).

2) However, (1) acquisition tax is a kind of distribution tax that assumes the fact that the transfer of goods is a transfer of goods and imposes tax on the person having the ability to pay taxes. Even if the building meets the independent real estate requirement, it is subject to distribution because it is impossible to transfer ownership before the registration of ownership preservation is completed; and (2) the time of acquisition is an important standard for determining the person liable to pay acquisition tax, the tax base and the deadline for filing a return, payment, etc., which are the tax requirements for additional taxes (see Articles 7(1), 10(1), 20(1), and 21(1) of the Local Tax Act). If various regulations are applied as of the unclear point of time, “if the minimum columns, roofss, and fences are made,” which is difficult to be determined as a specific day, the clarity of tax administration and the taxpayer’s legal stability and predictability may be harmed, and in view of the circumstances such as whether the building meets the independent real estate requirements and is likely to be traded in the near future, it shall be deemed that the acquisition tax liability is established as the time of building on public books or objective data.

3) Therefore, even before a registration of initial ownership is made with respect to a building, the date of approval for use, etc. for which it is deemed certain to make an application for the above registration possible after preparing the building ledger in the near future, and for this reason, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act seems to reflects the main sentence of Article 20(6). However, the provisions of Article 20(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the time of acquisition under the delegation of Article 10(7) of the former Local Tax Act, are merely an agenda for the time when the time of acquisition is unclear by the content or interpretation of the provisions of the Local Tax Act, and does not exclude significant and obvious time of acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu23527, May 24, 1994). If it is evident that the time of initial acquisition is different from the date of approval for use under the main sentence of Article 20(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, it

4) However, in full view of the following grounds: (a) the initial acquisition date of a building subject to auction during the construction, as in the instant case, is apparent that the registration of initial ownership has been completed at the auction procedure; and (b) in such a case, the approval date for use under the main sentence of Article 20(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act cannot be deemed the time of acquisition.

A) Article 602 of the former Civil Procedure Act, prior to the enactment of the Civil Execution Act by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002, provides that an auction of unregistered real estate shall be immediately registered in the debtor’s name, i.e., documents proving that an application for an auction can be filed in the debtor’s name. Since Article 131 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 6631 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that an auction of a building for which approval for use has not been granted is de facto impossible. However, with respect to unregistered building upon the enactment of the Civil Execution Act, the proviso to Article 81(1)2 of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that a request for auction shall be filed if it is accompanied by documents attesting that the building is owned by the debtor, documents attesting the lot number, structure and size of the building, and documents attesting a construction permit or a construction report on the building, the relevant provisions of the Registration of Real Estate Act were newly established and applied mutatis mutandis to the construction permit to the extent of at least 200.

In light of the legal principles on the application of the proviso of Article 81(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act, a building subject to an auction prior to approval for the use thereof shall be deemed to have been made by the construction of main walls and columns, etc. at the time the registration for the use thereof was completed, and the number, structure, area, and purpose of the building and the original acquisitor who constructed the building shall be publicly notified by the registration for the preservation of ownership, and the fact of registration shall be notified to the tax authority and the original acquisitor (Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 30 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 53(1)4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and Article 53(1)4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the time when the registration for the preservation of ownership was completed prior to the approval for

B) If it is deemed that the original acquisition date has not yet arrived before obtaining approval for use after the auction procedure for the building completed the external form registration, this is inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of acquisition tax, which takes advantage of ownership change itself regardless of whether ownership is actually complete, and recognizes and imposes tax capacity, and it is obvious that the building, which is an independent real estate, was the object of sale led by the court, was not the original acquisition. Therefore, it is distinguishable from the substance.

C) In addition, if a building owner’s construction in the fund from the date of registration of initial ownership is sold, the building owner will enjoy the benefit from which the debt becomes extinct through dividends. As to the building owner’s portion constructed up to the above time, the owner bears acquisition tax as the original acquisitor, and the successor who purchased it through auction bears the expenses for the additional construction up to the date of approval for use, and only the increased portion of the value is subject to 28/1,000 by deeming the increased portion as the original acquisition and applying the tax rate of 28/1,00 to the increased portion, by deeming the increased portion as the original acquisition and applying the tax rate of 28/1,00 to the increased portion.

D) Meanwhile, according to Article 7(2) of the former Local Tax Act and Article 20(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides that “an acquisition of real estate shall be deemed to have been acquired if the registration was made prior to the date of acquisition, such as the date of prohibition of progress, and the date of acquisition with respect to the acquisition by succession of real estate,” which provides that “If the registration was made prior to the date of acquisition, the acquisition shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of acquisition, the local tax Act provides that the actual owner who can complete the registration at any time on the premise that the acquisition was completed at the time of registration, at any time on the premise that the acquisition was completed at the time of registration, by delaying the registration at any time, and thereby preventing a person from filing a return and payment due to a delay in the registration, the acquisition time prior to the date of acquisition shall be deemed to have been the first day before the date

5) According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the time when the instant building was constructed and the original acquisition was completed on June 8, 2016, not on the date of approval for use, but on October 20, 2014, when the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the instant auction procedure. The original purchaser of the instant building is not the Plaintiff, but the Nonparty, not the Plaintiff. Therefore, the date when the registration license tax payment liability was established, namely, the date when the ownership transfer registration was completed, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the instant building upon its original acquisition only on the date of approval for use after October 21, 2015, for which the ownership transfer registration was completed.

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s liability to pay registration and license tax on transfer of ownership is established

1) The reason behind the amendment of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010) is “an increase in tax payment convenience by integrating taxable objects related to acquisition of registration tax, among the current registration tax, as acquisition tax,” and registration license tax has also the nature of registration license tax; accordingly, the former Local Tax Act excludes registration made due to acquisition subject to acquisition tax from the concept of registration, which is subject to registration license tax, under the proviso of Article 23 subparag. 1.

2) However, since the transfer registration of ownership completed by the Plaintiff was completed by the Nonparty’s acquisition by succession through the auction of this case, the above registration does not constitute a liability to pay registration and license tax on the above registration. However, as seen earlier by the Plaintiff’s above acquisition of ownership, the liability to pay acquisition tax is only established.

D. Whether the disposition is lawful

① Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff constructed the instant building and acquired it on the date of approval for use. ② The Plaintiff’s assertion on this cannot be said to have established the obligation to pay registration and license tax on the registration of transfer of ownership before the date of approval for use. The instant disposition to impose acquisition tax is unlawful since it is not recognized as taxation requirements

6. Determination as to whether the remainder of the disposition rejecting the correction of this case, excluding special rural development tax, is legitimate

A. Contents and key issues of the instant tax rate regulations

The Plaintiff filed registration and license tax return on the instant building by applying the tax rate of 20/100 to the registration and license tax, and the acquisition tax return on the instant land by applying the tax rate of 40/1,000 to the said land. The instant tax rate provisions asserted that 10/1,00 of the Plaintiff, upon filing a request for correction, was a legitimate tax rate of 10 million won or less, provide that “Where the Plaintiff acquires a house (referring to a house, as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Housing Act, which is entered into a house in the building ledger under Article 38 of the Building Act, and is used for residential purposes, and land annexed thereto; hereinafter the same shall apply) of which the value at the time of acquisition is not more than 60 million won as at the time of the relevant floating transaction” (The instant tax rate provisions provide that different tax rates by acquisition

Therefore, this part of the issue is whether the meaning of the language and text stated in the Housing Part General Ordinance of the instant tax rate provisions is stated as a house in the register along with the instant building, and whether the actual purpose of use is to interpret that it does not meet the requirements if the building register was not prepared even for multi-family

B. The principle of interpreting tax laws and regulations

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. However, if there are objective and reasonable grounds and grounds, a teleological interpretation shall be allowed within the scope that does not undermine legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law.

In particular, the provisions on taxation requirements, unlike the reduction and exemption provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions, should be interpreted to harmonize the meaning of the text with the overall legal order in accordance with the legislative background, purpose and purpose, considering the circumstances where it is impossible to uniformly set standards for the subject of regulation due to the characteristics of the tax laws that are changing from time to time and various economic phenomena, and to stipulate the subject of regulation in the Acts and subordinate statutes, which are performing various political purposes.

(c) Details and purpose of the establishment and amendment of the regulations on housing price transaction;

1) The previous Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides that acquisition tax calculated by applying the Local Tax Act shall be reduced by 25/100 to 75/100 on several occasions in cases where a person acquires a house under Article 40-2 or becomes one house or becomes two houses temporarily in order to revitalize the housing transaction, but there was a limit in effect, such as a temporary increase in the tax reduction or exemption period only during the tax reduction or exemption period.

2) As the Local Tax Act was amended by Act No. 12118 on December 26, 2013, Article 11 Subparag. 8 of the Local Tax Act introduced a provision on housing price transaction tax rate with the purport that “where a house is acquired by the value of less than 60 million won at the time of acquisition pursuant to Article 10 on the ground of a commercial transaction is less than 10/1,000,000 shall apply to a house acquisition tax rate of 10/1,00,000 for the purpose of reducing acquisition tax due to a housing transaction, thereby relaxinging the economic burden of the purchaser of a house.”

3) Although there was no separate definition provision on the housing subject to the said establishment at the time of the said establishment, there was a accumulation of precedents related to the application of Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (for example, officetels which is not a house is not a house subject to the reduction of the amount of tax, and officetels which is not a house under the residence or the Building Act are not a house subject to the reduction of the amount of tax), the tax authority applied the said tax rate provision to cases where the use on the public register and the actual use are both a house without any special question.

4) In order to ensure the predictability of taxpayers in relation to the imposition of acquisition tax as the provisions on the scope of housing do not expressly stipulate the scope of such business, and thus the controversy and civil petition arise, the definition that reflects the existing business practice in the overall title of the housing portion as the said provision was amended by the tax rate regulation on July 24, 2015, i.e., the phrase “house is entered in the building ledger as a house, and the building is used as a residential purpose and its appurtenant land” was added.

5) However, according to the above language and text, there was room for understanding that the application of the tax rate provision of this case is excluded because the housing was not entered in the building ledger but entered in the building ledger, but entered in the approval for use, approval for temporary use, or register, and the housing that could have been constructed without a building permit or building report, and that was not entered in the building ledger.

6) In order to realize the principle of substantial taxation, on the other hand, in order to promote the convenience of taxpayers, the text that the instant tax rate provision was amended by Act No. 14475 on December 27, 2016, and the phrase “it is entered into the building ledger as a house” under the foregoing Item was changed to “a house (including the case where a building permit is deemed to have been obtained or a building report is deemed to have been filed pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Building Act (Act No. 7696) that can be constructed without a building permit or building report pursuant to the Building Act (referring to the building ledger, a written approval for use, a temporary approval for temporary use, or a house register under the Registration of Real Estate Act (including the case where a building report is deemed to have been entered into the building ledger)” and

7) According to the current Local Tax Act amended, even if a house entered in the building ledger (including a house which can be constructed without a building permit or building report under the former Building Act, deemed recorded in the building ledger) is not a house (including a house which is possible to be constructed without a building permit or building report) but can be acquired by succession after obtaining approval for use, etc., it became clear to constitute a

D. Interpretation of the tax rate provision of this case

1) The instant tax rate provision is not a method of reducing or exempting the amount of tax calculated under other provisions of law, but a method of determining the applicable tax rate in cases falling under certain conditions. (1) The instant tax rate provision is a type of taxation subject to the classification of the provisions of the standard tax rate of real estate acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act which provides for the matters concerning taxation requirements, imposition, collection, etc. of each item of local tax; (2) therefore, the provisions of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act which provide for the matters concerning local tax reduction and exemption and special cases and the matters concerning restrictions differs from the existing tax reduction and exemption provisions under Article 40-2, and (3) The provision of the tax rate for value transaction of housing is not a preferential provision, but a new provision for the purpose of applying the tax rate lower than that of other real estate permanently for the acquisition of housing, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the said tax rate provision is not a preferential provision, but a provision for the taxation requirement of 10/1,000 for the imposition of acquisition tax under the above tax rate shall be interpreted within the legislative background and purpose of the provision

2) The case holding that the legislative purpose of this case provision is not to relieve the taxpayer's tax burden, while it is not to promote the convenience of the construction administration by inducing or forcing the entry of the house in the house ledger, and that the above provision is not to be prepared for the purpose of the construction of the building in accordance with the above provision on the house ledger because the building is merely a building recorded in the house ledger as a house under the above provision on the tax rate of this case. However, since the above provision on the house is not established to reduce the scope of the house to be applied, it is not to include the existing provision on the house in the house ledger which is not prepared for the purpose of the existing provision on the house ledger, and it is not to be prepared for the purpose of the above provision on the house ledger that the above provision on the house is not prepared for the purpose of the construction of the building in accordance with the above provision on the house ledger, and it is to be prepared for the purpose of the new provision on the house ledger which is not prepared for the purpose of the construction of the building in accordance with the above provision on the house ledger.

E. Whether the disposition is lawful

1) According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the purpose of the instant building is recorded as a multi-unit housing in the registry prepared on October 20, 2014, which was the original acquisition date, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant building and its appurtenant land due to the instant auction, which was a commercial transaction on October 21, 2015. As to the said acquisition, the acquisition tax rate of 10/1,000 prescribed by the instant tax rate should be applied, and the acquisition tax rate of 40/1,000 shall be applied only to the acquisition of the instant ( Address 2 omitted) land as originally reported by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this issue is well-grounded.

2) However, when calculating the tax amount by applying the above tax rate with respect to the land portion, the reasonable tax amount is KRW 2,300,930, special rural development tax, KRW 64,380, and local education tax as indicated in the separate sheet, and KRW 230,090, and KRW 3,039,90 (i.e., KRW 5,340,920 - KRW 2,300,920 - 2,300,930), and KRW 202,660,00 local education tax (= KRW 267,040 - KRW 64,380), as indicated in the separate sheet (= KRW 534,090 - KRW 230,090).

3) In addition, when calculating the tax amount by applying the above tax rate to the portion of a building, the pertinent tax amount shall be KRW 2,564,760 for acquisition tax and KRW 256,470 for local education tax as shown in the attached Form, and the portion exceeding the pertinent reasonable tax amount among the tax amount initially reported by the Plaintiff (=5,129,530 won - 2,564,760 won) and local education tax (=1,025,90 won - 256,470 won).

4) As such, the Defendant’s rejection disposition against the above excessive amount is unlawful, the remainder of the disposition rejecting the correction of the instant case, excluding the special tax for rural development, should be revoked in its entirety.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the part of the special rural development tax of the building among the plaintiff's refusal disposition of correction of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is accepted with merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the part of the claim for cancellation of the corrective refusal disposition of the above part of the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the remaining part of the acquisition tax and the disposition for refusal of correction of this case are revoked, but the plaintiff's claim was mostly accepted by pointing out the illegality of each disposition of this case, and since the part of the lawsuit is extremely dismissed without issue, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, 98, the proviso to Article 101, and Article 105 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment]

Judges Shin Jae-sop (Presiding Judge)