Suwon District Court 2009Guhap2172 (O6.07)

early 2009 middle 0503 ( October 24, 2009)

The rejection disposition such as comprehensive real estate holding tax on forest land preserved in its original form is legitimate.

(1) The Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act itself is not unconstitutional, but does not violate the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of no comprehensive delegation prohibition, and does not infringe on the constitutional equality and freedom of choice of occupation.

Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2011Nu22756. Revocation of the disposition of refusal to revise the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax, etc.

XX Development Co., Ltd.

Head of the Office of Government

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap2172 Decided June 7, 2011

November 2, 2011

December 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on November 25, 2008 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2005 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o. The "Enforcement Decree of this case" is referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case" in Article 131-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of this case") 6th below the 6th judgment of the first instance court.

In addition, from the seventh seventh day of the judgment of the court of first instance to the fourteenth day of the judgment, "inherent differences" are as follows:

[The provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case only stipulate the land for sports facilities among the essential facilities to be installed by the public sports facilities business operator under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act in accordance with the facility standards for the public sports facilities business, as one of the "land prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which is a considerable reason for aggregate taxation" as referred to in subparagraph 10, and the forest land for public golf course or the land for membership golf course is not defined as the land for separate taxation.

In light of the characteristics of golf courses with limited use by the general public and the characteristics of the national land, in which no golf course can be created unless the area of land is short of the area of land for a golf course with limited use by the general public and considerable damage to the mountainous districts and forests, the forest land within the land for a membership golf course is not determined as the land subject to separate aggregate taxation under the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the forest land within the land for a membership golf

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.