early 2012 Mine2400 ( October 10, 2012)

It is difficult to deem that the rental period is not satisfied due to a natural disaster or other causes equivalent thereto.

It is reasonable to view that the term "a natural disaster or any other similar cause constitutes a natural disaster, but the term "other similar cause" means at least a case where the plaintiff cannot lease a rental house any longer due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff to the extent equivalent to a natural disaster. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the term of lease inevitably fails to meet the requirements under the management normalization plan.

2012Guhap5527 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, etc.

AAA Construction Corporation

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

April 4, 2013

May 9, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

On April 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked each imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of 000 won and special rural development tax of 2009, comprehensive real estate tax of 000 won and special rural development tax of 2010, comprehensive real estate tax of 000 won and special rural development tax of 201, and comprehensive rural development tax of 00 won for 201 and special rural development tax of 00 won for 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a rental business operator operating a housing construction project and a rental housing project, and the Plaintiff newly constructed 544 units of constructed rental housing located in 000 OOri-Eup in the local-nam city around September 25, 2008, and started the lease of the above rental housing on September 25, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of each comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2009 through 201, and the 5444 households above rental housing paid comprehensive real estate holding tax for the following reasons: Article 8(2)1 of the former Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23219, Oct. 14, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff converted 378 households among the above rental housing (hereinafter “the instant rental housing”) into sale pursuant to Article 16(3) of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 10463, Mar. 9, 2011; hereinafter the same) and Article 13(2)2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22970, Jun. 9, 2011; hereinafter the same) under Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22970, Jun. 9, 201).

D. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) made a conversion into lots within five years from the date the Plaintiff commenced the lease of the instant rental house; and (b) made a correction and notification of the Plaintiff’s comprehensive real estate holding tax for 200 won and special rural development tax for 200 won and special rural development tax for 200 won, and 00 won for comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2000 and special rural development tax for 201, respectively, by adding interest to the tax amount reduced by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 17(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the rental period requirements under Article 3(1)1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act by converting the rental period into lots (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On May 8, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 10, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2 (including each number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around June 2009, the Plaintiff was selected as an insolvent company under the former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10303, May 17, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and had no choice but to have entered into an agreement to implement the management normalization plan with the main bonds bank to avoid compulsory measures such as reimbursement at the time of opening obligations to creditor financial institutions, and if it does not follow the management normalization plan under the above implementation agreement, it was inevitable to convert the instant rental housing into parcelling-out in accordance with the above management normalization plan due to the risk of bankruptcy, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant rental housing falls under the case of "natural disasters and other similar causes" under Article 3 (7) 5 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Holding Tax Act, and therefore, the instant rental housing meets the requirements of lease period under Article 3 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Holding Tax Act, and the Defendant’s disposition on the other premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In addition to the arguments stated in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff entered into an agreement on the implementation of the management normalization program with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation which is the principal creditor bank pursuant to the former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act on July 16, 2009. It is recognized that the plaintiff's implementation plan for management normalization of the above rental housing (00 won for sale marginal profit) as security, and that it includes the contents of the creditor financial institutions to repay the above rental housing without due consideration of the disposal of the security provided, the implementation of self-help plan, and the cash flow created by business activities of the creditor financial institutions (Operating Committee) in the case of the plaintiff's comprehensive real estate holding tax, the supply of rental housing for the protection of the ordinary people and the low-rise stories may be reduced, and that Article 8 (12) of the former Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act excludes comprehensive real estate holding tax standards for specific cases, and that it is difficult for the plaintiff to enter into the agreement on the implementation of the above implementation plan for non-performing rental housing business under the former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.