Interpretation of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9274)

Even if a factory is permitted to build or extend a factory in a large city prior to the enforcement date of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, it is limited to the factory building and its appurtenant land, and it shall not be excluded from the subject of heavy taxation.

Article 112(1) and (3) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3154), Article 84-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9274), Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9274)

For Co., Ltd.

The head of Jung-gu in Incheon

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 13,187,851 against the plaintiff on November 24, 1980 shall be revoked at any time in the year 1980.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant imposed acquisition tax amount of KRW 2,97,239 (tax base amount 149,861,950 x 20/100 x 20/1000) on two mid-terms in the separate sheet imported by the plaintiff company, applying the tax rate prescribed in Article 112(1) of the Local Tax Act, but on November 24, 1980, the above mid-terms shall be subject to heavy taxation on the ground that they are taxable objects for the construction of a factory in the large city under Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act, which are acquired for the construction of a new factory in the large city under Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties to the tax.

The plaintiff first, according to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, before January 1, 1979, the building that had already been permitted to construct or extend a factory in a large city and the land annexed thereto shall not be deemed to be the new construction or extension of a factory in a large city under Article 84-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Since the Incheon City was included in a large city since January 1, 1979, the plaintiff company received a permission to construct a timber business subsidiary factory in the Incheon City on October 20, 1978 before the enforcement date of the above Enforcement Decree, and the plaintiff company acquired ownership on December 31 of the same year with the permission to import on July 14, 1979, and acquired ownership on March 26, 1979, and the acquisition of ownership in the large city within this period should be excluded from the subject of the above imposition of acquisition tax under Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 2-11 (Multiple Certificate), 13 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 14 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 15 (Report on Construction), 19 (Report on Construction Completion), 20 (Report on Construction Completion), 21 (Report on Construction Completion), 22, 23 (Report on Construction Completion), 35 (Report on Construction Completion), 40, 41 (Report on Construction Completion) of the same evidence Nos. 22-35 (Report on Construction Completion), 35 (Report on Construction), 41 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 14-13 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 15-14 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 19-14 (Report on Establishment of Place of Business), 20-3 of the same evidence No. 197, 1978, 30-14, 197, 197, and 3 of the same company's new construction report on Construction Report No.

However, according to local tax laws and regulations, since acquisition tax rates for acquiring objects of taxation for the new construction or extension of factories in large cities prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be 50/100 of the tax rate of Article 112(1) of the same Act (20/100) (Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act), and Incheon City shall be included in large cities from January 1, 1979 [Article 9274, 79-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (No. 9274, Dec. 30, 1978), "business object" means buildings, land, vehicles (excluding automobiles), and land annexed to factories in large cities, which are excluded from the acquisition tax rate of Article 47 subparag. 3 of the same Act. Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (No. 9274, Dec. 30, 1978) provides that the above new construction permission of large cities and land annexed to factories shall not be implemented before the enforcement date of the new construction permission.

Second, the plaintiff company acquired this case in order to increase the effect of work regardless of the new establishment of the plaintiff company's sanctions factory, and acquired it to use it in transporting original trees in the original materials plant located adjacent to the above sanctions factory, so the defendant's disposition of imposing heavy acquisition tax is unlawful since the acquisition of the middle materials is the acquisition of the object of taxation for the construction or extension of the above factory. Thus, in light of the evidence cited above and evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4 (each photograph) without dispute over the establishment of each of the above evidences and evidence No. 4, the plaintiff company's Incheon Timber Business Office's sanctions factory and original materials are adjacent to each other, and it can be recognized that the facts acquired in accordance with the new establishment of the above sanctions factory and the original materials are used as the same in the above sanctions factory and the original materials, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition, so the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the acquisition tax imposition disposition is without merit, and is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)