logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.29 2016가단5057843
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 20, 201, the Plaintiff acquired the first underground floor 5 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the building B and C in Gangnam-gu Seoul and C, and reported to the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the acquisition tax and local education tax, etc. calculated by applying a heavy taxation rate on the premise that the instant real estate falls under real estate for a high-class recreation center (an entertainment tavern) under Article 13(5)4 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “former Local Tax Act”); Article 28(5)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24296, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”).

B. The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government deemed the instant real estate as falling under real estate for high-class recreation centers under the above statutes, and issued a disposition imposing property tax and local education tax on the instant real estate as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

Local education tax on property tax on land in the year 201 as local education tax on property tax on local education tax 891,230 won 30,70,880,880 won 6,140,170 won 4,485,785,710 won 897,140 won 31,752,280 won 6,350,450 won 4,352,520 won 870,524,240 won 33,240 won 6,64,840 won 200 4,352,520 won 870,50 won 870,500 won 33,224,240 won ,64,840 won - The purport of the whole pleadings of evidence No. 2, Eul 2

2. The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government alleged that the real estate in this case was not subject to heavy tax rate because it was not a real estate for a high-class recreation center under this Act and subordinate statutes prior to the plaintiff's assertion, or could have easily known it by means of confirming on-site inspection and related documents, and recognized the real estate in this case as falling under real estate for a high-class recreation center under the above Act and subordinate statutes, and issued a tax disposition in this case. Thus,

arrow