200-0654 (200.07.31)

acquisition

Dismissal

Since it is not deemed that active efforts have been made to sell real estate during the grace period, acquisition tax and disposition among acquisition tax are reasonable.

Article 112 of the Local Tax Act / Property excluded from additional taxes among Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

The claimant's request for review shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of the original disposition;

처분청은 청구인이 1993.5.15. 채권을 보전할 목적으로 ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ면 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇ번지 공장용지 34,312㎡(이하 “이건 토지”라 한다) 및 그 지상건축물을 경락 취득한 후, 1993.6.24. 한국자산관리공사(구 성업공사)에 매각을 위임하였으나 2년 6월이내에 정당한 사유없이 매각하지 아니하였으므로, 이건 토지를 법인의 비업무용 토지로 보아 그 취득가액(127,893,000원)에 구지방세법(1998.12.31. 법률 제5615호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제112조제2항의 세율을 적용하여 산출한 세액에서 이미 납부한 세액을 차감한 취득세 19,951,300원(가산세 포함)을 1999.12.10. 부과 고지하였다.

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

청구인은 채무자 청구외 ㅇㅇ(주)의 부도로 채권을 확보하고자 1993.5.15. 이건 부동산을 취득한 후, 1년 이내인 1993.6.24. 한국자산관리공사에 매각을 위임하여 ㅇㅇ신문 등 중앙일간지에 매각공고를 통하여 1993.8.31.부터 1994.7.13.까지 총 6회 36차에 걸쳐 공매를 추진하였으나 매각되지 않아, 자체적으로 원매자를 물색하여 2회에 걸쳐 수의계약을 시도하였으나 원매자의 포기로 무산되었고, 그후 1998.4.21.부터 2000.1.27.까지 총 5회 21차에 걸쳐 추가공매를 추진하였고, 현재도 계속적으로 공매를 추진하고 있음에도 계속 유찰됨에 따라 매각하지 못한 정당한 사유가 있음에도, 이건 토지를 법인의 비업무용 토지로 보아 취득세를 중과세한 처분은 부당하다고 주장하면서 이건 부과처분의 취소를 구하였다.

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

A dispute over an objection request shall be whether or not there exists any justifiable reason which fails to sell the lands for preservation of claims within one year (2 years and six months).

Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act and Article 84-4 (1) 1 and (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489, Oct. 1, 1997) provide that where a corporation fails to sell the land within one year (2 years and six months for the land on which it delegates the sale to the Korea Assets Management Corporation under the Banking Act, the Insurance Business Act, the Trust Business Act, or any other Act) after it acquires the land to preserve or exercise its claim, it shall be subject to heavy taxation on such land as

In the case of claimant, on May 15, 1993, the claimant acquired a successful bid (price of 568,589,000) from the court for the purpose of preserving the claim. On June 24, 1993, the claimant entrusted the sale to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on June 24, 1993, with the sale of the real estate within one year, and was above the minimum price of 1,403,400,000 won at the first public auction (amount of 6 months), the highest price of 1,750,80,000 won (amount of 5 years equal payment) for the purpose of preserving the claim. Accordingly, the claimant started to sell the real estate at a lower price than the acquisition price for the real estate at a higher price than six years and six months from the acquisition date until November 1, 1995, the sale price at a lower price than the minimum price of 631,600,000 won for the public auction, but the sale price at a lower price for non-business.

In this regard, the claimant argues that the sale of this real estate to the Korea Asset Management Corporation within one year from the date of the sale of the real estate and the sale of this real estate to the Korea Asset Management Corporation through the public announcement of the sale for the central daily newspaper (12 times) is a justifiable reason for the expiration of the grace period due to the failure to sell the real estate 11 times in total and 2 free contracts. However, the claimant's efforts to sell this real estate to the Korea Asset Management Corporation for the continuous public sale at 80,000,000 after the acquisition of this real estate are recognized. However, the claimant's efforts to sell this real estate within 568,589,00 won to the Korea Asset Management Corporation and continuously promote the public sale at the higher price than the acquisition price (minimum price of 631,600,000 won) until the expiration of 2 years and 6 months since its failure to sell it within the grace period can not be accepted, and therefore, the claimant's assertion that there is no justifiable reason for this decision.

Therefore, since the claimant's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered by Article 77 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

August 29, 2000

Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice;