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, a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on August 24, 2010, acquired securitization assets in KRW 110.6 billion, including loan claims secured by the Plaintiff’s credit from the Plaintiff at the time of Gyeyang-gu, 1037-2, and 15 parcels (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure of the instant real estate, and won the instant real estate at the auction on April 3, 2012, and paid the sale price in full on May 21, 2012.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 70,000,000,000 to the Defendant, which is calculated by deducting and reducing the tax amount of KRW 50/100 as the tax base for the instant real estate, and KRW 3,500,000,000 for local education tax, and special rural development tax.
On May 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the acquisition of the instant real estate was not subject to acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; (b) prior to the amendment by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “new Act”); and (c) deemed that it did not fall under the subject of acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; (b) imposed acquisition tax of KRW 90,006,00; (c) local education tax of KRW 8,300,60; and (d) special agricultural and fishing villages tax of KRW 3,800,300,000 (including penalty tax).
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Article 120(1)9 of the new Act on the Claim for Reduction and Exemption of Acquisition Tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the Plaintiff’s Claim No. 1, does not apply to directly succeeding or acquiring real estate from an originator or a special purpose company, but claims secured by the originator as real estate.