Plaintiff

The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Jeon Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant)

January 30, 2015

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap30575 decided April 18, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Claim: The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 3,304,120 (including additional taxes), local education tax of KRW 330,410 (including additional taxes) on November 10, 2012, and the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 3,835,320 (including additional taxes) on March 10, 2013, and the imposition of local education tax of KRW 352,530 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: The part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the following contents. Therefore, this judgment is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

① On the 6th page 1, “The removal of each of the instant houses led to the occurrence of 306.590 tons of waste concrete due to the removal, and the development of the Dosung Environment, a interim disposal business operator, was deemed to be entrusted with the disposal of the waste concrete by means of crushing and crushing.”

② On the 7th page, “it shall not be deemed a house as prescribed by the Housing Act” in the 6th page, “The Plaintiff lost a considerable portion of the function as a house, and the Plaintiff acquired it for the purpose of removing it, not for residential purpose, but for removal, etc. at the same time as the acquisition of each of the instant houses. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was a single house owner at the time of acquiring the instant housing ( Address 3 omitted).”

(3) On the 7th page 10, the term “( Address 2 omitted) house” shall be changed to “( Address 3 omitted) house”.

④ On May 5, 2012, part 7, “Permission for extension from the Defendant on May 5, 2012” in part 7, shall be considered as “Permission for Construction from the Defendant on September 5, 2012.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)