1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on June 7, 2013, with respect to the land A miscellaneous land No. 4900 square meters, B miscellaneous land B miscellaneous land, C miscellaneous land 4,975 square meters, and C miscellaneous land C miscellaneous land 5,472 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption with the Defendant on the ground that the acquisition tax on the instant land was acquired to be used for religious business, and the Defendant exempted the Defendant from acquisition tax, etc. on the instant land pursuant to the main sentence of Article 50(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same).

From June 7, 2013, the date of acquisition of the instant land, the Defendant confirmed that the instant land was not used for religious purposes, which is the object of business, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the said land was not used for religious purposes on July 4, 2016.

After reporting and paying acquisition tax, etc. exempted on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed for correction of the above acquisition tax, etc., claiming that the Defendant had justifiable grounds for not using the instant land directly for religious purposes on August 29, 2016. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, and on February 22, 2017, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do designated the instant land as a restricted area for development activities for 11 months from November 6, 2015 to October 7, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff could not perform construction activities in the instant land. Therefore, the said 11 month should be excluded in determining whether a three-year grace period for such exemption of acquisition tax, etc. has been completed.The Defendant rendered a decision to revoke the Defendant’s rejection of correction on the grounds of ‘the foregoing decision to revoke the Defendant’s rejection of correction.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff around March 2, 2017 according to the ruling of the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do.