logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016누65840
재산세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420

The Local Tax Act shall be amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as the "Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act".

Part 6, conduct 3, the following shall be added:

C) The Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit, etc. to use the instant land for religious purpose business, but did not permit the Defendant’s designation of the instant land as a development restriction zone. On the other hand, applying heavy taxation rate, which is the nature of penalty applied to the instant land, etc. on the ground that the instant land is not used for religious purpose business, is contrary to the good faith principle. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was contributed to the instant land designated as a development restriction zone, and the Defendant was designated as a development restriction zone, and there are circumstances under which the Plaintiff’s building permit, etc. cannot be accepted, it is difficult to view the instant disposition as contrary to the good faith principle (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1958 Decided June 28, 196 cited by the Plaintiff, which is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, due to

(D) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Article 102(5)13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides that only the land owned by a non-profit entrepreneur prior to December 31, 1995 shall be subject to separate taxation, is unconstitutional as it violates the infringement of property rights and the right to equality.

Article 102 (5) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that land owned by a non-profit entrepreneur under Article 22 prior to December 31, 1995 shall be subject to separate taxation. Therefore, the system of separate taxation on aggregate land tax is subject to heavy taxation or transitional taxation in accordance with policy considerations.

arrow