2012Nu430 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of heavy taxation

Limited Company O○○○

Busan Central District

Representative Director ○ Kim

Attorney Jeong-deok et al., Counsel for the defendant

The head of Jung-gu Busan Metropolitan Government

Litigation Performers MaximumO, No. O

Busan District Court Decision 2011Guhap4733 Decided December 23, 2011

May 18, 2012

June 1, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation of each imposition of KRW 30,340,10, and property tax (land) and local education tax (land) imposed on September 6, 2011 against the Plaintiff on July 5, 2011, of KRW 45,462,880, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The issues of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance court

The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant business establishment constitutes a high-class recreation center to which the heavy tax rate applies. The first instance court determined that the instant business establishment consists of 10 guest seats equipped with the tables and small waves and 10 guest rooms in addition to dancing dancing and that the entire size of the instant business establishment is less than 1,015.80 square meters, including facilities necessary to dance, such as lighting and sound equipment, and its size is insignificant. The 10 guest rooms installed in the instant business establishment are accompanied by singing facilities, so that customers may enjoy entertainment in a way different from the dancing value, and that they can not be seen as having engaged in entertainment business in a part of the instant business establishment, and that they can not be seen as having been engaged in entertainment in a way that they can not be seen as having been permitted to enjoy admission fees in addition to the drinking value, and that they can not be seen as having engaged in entertainment in a part of the instant business establishment with the different types of entertainment facilities.

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

In light of the Defendant’s assertion complementary to the trial, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable. Accordingly, the reason why this court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that stated in the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Maximum seal (Presiding Judge)

Park Jong-chul

Freeboard