logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2012.10.17 2012구합2896
과세처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts under the circumstances of the disposition are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 12 (including the branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence of No. 1 to 5.

C. A tourist destination located in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant tourist destination”) is designated and publicly announced as a tourist destination pursuant to Article 16 of the former Tourism Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 2285, Jan. 18, 1971; hereinafter the same shall apply) around November 28, 1983, after which the C tourist destination was additionally designated and publicly announced as a tourist destination pursuant to Article 46 of the former Tourism Business Act (amended by Act No. 3910, Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter “instant tourist destination”), which was changed and publicly announced as a tourist destination on January 21, 1969.

B. On July 5, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired each ownership of D 198 square meters, E, E, 1,689 square meters on February 27, 1995, and F 360 square meters on January 30, 2001 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The real estate located within the tourist destination of this case was designated or incorporated as the tourist destination of this case around November 28, 1983, which was the public announcement date of the change in the designation of the tourist destination of this case at the latest.

The accurate time when the instant real estate was designated and incorporated as the instant tourist destination cannot be confirmed.

C. After the approval of the change of the plan to develop the tourist destination of this case was announced as G on November 8, 1985, the development project of this case was implemented by dividing it into Zone 1, 2, and 3 as the development project of this case was wholly amended by Act No. 8343, Apr. 11, 2007.

arrow