logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.12.03 2015구합52245
취득세 등 경정거부처분취소 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a real estate investment company established on April 23, 2013 pursuant to the Real Estate Investment Company Act for the purpose of acquiring, managing, disposing of, and leasing real estate.

B. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was exempted from the acquisition tax and local education tax pursuant to Article 34(4) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act on the ground that it purchased the Incheon Nam-gu B apartment No. 103 Dong 404 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from A and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on August 26, 2013.

C. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with A as of September 2, 2018, setting the term of lease as of September 2, 2018, but terminated the said lease agreement around October 22, 2014.

On December 4, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the payment of acquisition tax and local education tax exempted on the ground that the lease contract for the instant housing was terminated within the grace period. On the same day, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, 5,561,880 won, and local education tax by applying the reduction rate of acquisition tax on real estate acquired by a real estate investment trust pursuant to Article 120(4) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014).

E. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification with the Defendant on the ground that “acquisition of the instant house is subject to exemption from acquisition tax under Article 34(4) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, and fails to maintain the contractual terms due to justifiable grounds,” and the Defendant rejected the application for rectification on April 30, 2015, on the ground that “the termination of the contract by the lessee’s director does not constitute justifiable grounds.”

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【Unsatisfys 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 evidence, 1 and 2 evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a director on October 22, 2014.

arrow