beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land by auction, as well as the building on the land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building,” including the instant land, and the instant real estate, on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired to establish and operate a welfare facility for the aged, the Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 20 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act”) on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate acquired to establish and operate a welfare facility for the aged.
On July 12, 2016, the Defendant confirmed the existence of the instant building through a business trip investigation. On October 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax amounting to KRW 73,045,170, local education tax, KRW 6,097,620, and KRW 10,589,920, on the ground that the instant real estate was not used as a welfare facility for the aged and constitutes “where it is not used directly for the relevant purpose without justifiable grounds until one year from the date of acquisition thereof,” under Article 178 Subparag. 1 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【A without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, and 21 (including each number), and the plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the purport of the entire pleadings as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate of this case was "direct use" as welfare facilities for the aged, or "justifiable cause" that was not directly used. The disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff did not directly use the real estate for the pertinent purpose within one year from the
According to Article 123 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the scope of "direct use" is under construction of buildings to be used for the relevant reduced or exempted business.