logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.06.13 2018구합76866
취득세부과처분취소
Text

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

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

Reasons

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff, a corporation that operates housing construction business, new construction of housing, sales business, etc., newly built eight houses, such as multi-household houses C, etc. (hereinafter “first house”) and eight houses, such as multi-household houses, etc. (hereinafter “second house of this case”) on the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground, and obtained approval for use on November 21, 2014 by combining the first house of this case.

On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes multi-family housing constructed for sale pursuant to Article 33(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13636, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon filing a return on acquisition tax, etc. on each of the instant houses with the Defendant, and received reduction

On the other hand, on October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for purchase of each of the instant housing with E (the name was changed to FF on September 1, 2016; hereinafter “E”) and the Nonparty Corporation decided to purchase each of the instant housing units on October 31, 2014.

On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Corporation entered into a sales contract for each of the instant housing units, and the Nonparty Corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant housing units on January 12, 2015.

In the process of local tax audit, the Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out that the collective sale of the apartment house against the defendant to the non-party corporation does not constitute the sale of the apartment house, so it cannot be viewed as acquisition tax reduction under Article 33 (1)

On December 12, 2017, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of the acquisition tax (including additional taxes) and local education tax (including additional taxes) on the ground that each of the instant houses does not fall under the reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under Article 33(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act as follows:

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The tax amount subject to taxation on the date of the instant disposition shall be additional tax.

arrow