logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.11 2015구합68889
취득세등부과처분취소
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. On June 14, 2012, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of agricultural management, etc., and acquired 237-1/792 square meters per annum 237-1/21,792 square meters per annum (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) such as Mancheon-do, Mancheon-do, Mancheon-si, Mancheon-si, Mancheon-si, Mancheon-si, Man-si, Man-si

B. Upon reporting acquisition tax on each of the instant lands on October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) pursuant to Article 11(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that each of the instant lands constitutes real estate acquired by an agricultural corporation within two years from the date of its establishment to use for farming; (b) exempted the Plaintiff from acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax; and (c) the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from acquisition tax, local education tax, and special rural development tax.

C. As a result of conducting a field investigation on each of the instant lands on September 25, 2014, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not directly use each of the instant land for farming without justifiable grounds until one year after the date of acquisition, and on February 11, 2015, imposed and collected assessment of the Plaintiff KRW 94,162,170, local education tax, KRW 7,886,610, and KRW 3,943,300 for each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, but the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on June 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. After acquiring each of the lands of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion has continued to use each of the lands of this case directly for farming, including farmland improvement works, access roads, and securing farming roads, and planting and managing tree seedlings, etc., and otherwise, within one year from the date of acquisition by the Plaintiff.

arrow