beta
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 company established on November 16, 2006 for the purpose of the steel retail business of steel products, steel processing business, manufacturing business, etc.
B. On March 207, the Plaintiff purchased metal assembly material manufacturing business (hereinafter “the instant business”) a 30,345 square meters of Dosan-ri Dosan-ri 11-1 forest and 30,345 square meters, 55 square meters of Dosan-ri Dosan-ri Dosan-ri, 56 square meters of 57 square meters, 57 square meters of 57 square meters of 57 square meters of ri-ri ri-ri 57 square meters, 58 square meters of ri-ri ri-ri 57 square meters, 536 square meters of ri-ri ri-ri 58, 58-1 preceding 2,674 square meters of ri-ri ri-ri ri-ri ri ri-ri ri ri
The shares held on March 8, 2007: 1860/30345, March 27, 2007: the shares held on March 2007, 1860/30345, in the Dolology No. 11-1, 1685/30345, the ground for registration of lot number registration date: Sale and purchase Dolri 56 March 30, 2007, March 27, 2007, the sale and purchase Dolri 56 March 27, 2007, the trade Dolri 57 March 27, 2007, the trade Dolri 57 March 30, 207, the sale and purchase Dolri 57 March 30, 2007, the sale and purchase Dol 58, March 207, 207.
C. The Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from acquisition tax, special rural development tax, registration tax, and local education tax on the ground that the instant land constitutes “business property acquired by a small or medium start-up enterprise within two years from the date of establishment to conduct the relevant business” under Articles 119(3) and 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).
The Defendant imposed acquisition tax, special rural development tax, registration tax, and local education tax, which was exempted pursuant to the proviso of Article 119(3) and the proviso of Article 120(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant land within two years from the date of acquisition without any justifiable reason,” and on February 7, 2014, as indicated in the details of imposition attached Table 1.