Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Cheongdon, Attorneys Choi dilution)

Yangsan Market (Law Firm Han & Yang, Attorneys Cho Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 22, 2010

Ulsan District Court Decision 2009Guhap3525 Decided June 23, 2010

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of collecting acquisition tax of 354,471,530 won, special rural development tax of 69,104,940 won, registration tax of 301,840,820 won, and local education tax of 58,809,390 won shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

It is identical to the text of paragraphs 1 and 2.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the whole purport of arguments in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 3-4, 5-1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 10-1, 2, 2, 3, and 5-1, 5-2, 5-2, 10, 10-1, 2, 2, and 3.

가. 건설교통부장관은 2004. 12. 30. 대한주택공사가 양산시 물금읍 가촌리 780-1 일원 34,993.8㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 사업지구’라 한다)에 1채당 면적이 36㎡ 내지 51㎡인 국민임대아파트 12개동 957세대를 건설하는 양산가촌 주공국민임대주택건설사업(이하 ‘이 사건 사업’이라 한다)을 사업기간을 2004년 12월∽2008년 12월로 하여 구 국민임대주택건설등에관한특례법(2009. 3. 20. 법률 제9511호 보금자리주택건설 등에 관한 특례법으로 전면 개정되기 전의 것) 제23조 의 규정에 따라 승인하고, 이를 2005. 1. 6. 건설교통부고시 2004-510호로 고시하였다.

B. On December 22, 2006, the Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) comprehensively succeeded to the property, claims, debts, and other rights and obligations of the Korea National Housing Corporation as the Plaintiff was merged with the Korea National Housing Corporation on October 1, 2009 by Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The Plaintiff filed an application for extension of the commencement period pursuant to Article 16(7) of the Housing Act to the Defendant on December 26, 2006 for the change of the project plan due to the land impracticable to convert a mountainous district within the instant project district. Accordingly, on December 26, 2006, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a confirmation letter of extension of the commencement date of the instant project from July 2006 to December 30, 207.

C. On July 3, 2007, the Minister of Construction and Transportation revised the scheduled date of commencement of the instant project on August 2008, and the scheduled date of usage inspection on October 201.

라. 원고는 2008. 4.경 건설교통부장관에게 이 사건 사업지구내 산지전용이 불가능한 부분에 대해 녹지시설로 변경하는 내용의 사업계획변경승인 신청을 하였고, 이에 대하여 국토해양부장관은 2008. 10. 29. 이 사건 사업지구 내 산지전용 불가한 부분을 제척하여 이 사건 사업면적을 34,993.8㎡에서 33,431.5㎡로, 규모를 957세대에서 700세대로, 사업기간을 2004. 12.∽2012. 5.로 변경하는 사업계획 변경승인을 하고, 이를 2008. 11. 5. 국토해양부 고시 제2008-621호로 이를 고시하였다.

E. Meanwhile, around November 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax, registration tax, education tax, special tax for rural development (hereinafter “acquisition tax, etc.”) with the Defendant under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 225 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that it constitutes “real estate acquired by the Plaintiff for the purpose of providing it to a third party,” and the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from local education tax under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act on November 27, 2007, on the ground that it constitutes “the real estate acquired by the Plaintiff temporarily for the purpose of providing it to a third party,” and thus, the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from acquisition tax,169,080 won, special tax for rural development, 54,034,680 won, registration tax, 236, 15, 97, 305, 409, etc. (hereinafter “the local education tax”).

F. On July 22, 2009, the Defendant exempted acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. on land annexed thereto pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act because the national rental housing of the instant business constituted a small-scale apartment house with a building area of 60 square meters or less per household, but notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of local tax taxation on the ground that the Plaintiff did not start within four years from December 31, 2004 after having obtained approval of the project plan regarding the instant business. On October 19, 2010, the Defendant issued a notice of the pre-announcement of local tax assessment on the ground that the Plaintiff did not start the business within four years from December 31, 2004, and issued a notice of the pre-announcement of local tax assessment on the ground that the Plaintiff added acquisition tax, etc. exempted pursuant to Article 269(3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 223(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and additionally imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Defendant initially rendered the instant decision of reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, and there was no ground for ex post facto collection of local tax exemption pursuant to the said provision, and the collection of local tax pursuant to Article 269(3) of the Local Tax Act is premised on reduction and exemption under Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act. Since the Defendant did not make a decision of reduction and exemption under Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act, the instant disposition did not exist.

The decision to grant exemption of this case constitutes a public statement of opinion, and also includes that the Ministry of Construction and Transportation prepared on May 2004 and distributed by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation to the Plaintiff, etc. exempt the acquisition tax, etc. for the business of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff believed that exemption of acquisition tax, etc. is maintained regardless of whether it commenced by the decision to grant exemption, and thus, the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection or the principle of trust and good faith, as it infringes on the Plaintiff’s trust interest trust that believed the above non-taxation

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) The issues of the instant case

Article 289 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that real estate acquired by a plaintiff temporarily to use for projects prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the purpose of supplying it to a third party according to a plan of the State or a local government shall be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, and Article 269 (1) of the same Act provides that real estate for small-scale multi-family housing prescribed by the Presidential Decree acquired by the plaintiff for the purpose of lease shall be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, and Article 289 (3) of the same Act provides that the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected additionally

Meanwhile, Article 292 of the Local Tax Act and Article 231 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that a person who intends to have local tax reduced or exempted shall submit an application for local tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act or Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 25-2 of the Local Tax Act provides that "the head of a local government shall immediately revoke the imposition or exemption of local tax if he/she confirms that the imposition or exemption of local tax is illegal or unjust." Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "When the head of a local government revokes or alters the imposition or exemption of local tax pursuant to Article 25-2 of the Act,

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was temporarily acquired for the purpose of supplying the instant land to a third party in accordance with the State’s plan on November 27, 2007, and the Defendant rendered a decision to exempt the Plaintiff from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act on November 27, 2007. The Defendant: (a) on July 22, 2009, the Defendant reduced or exempted acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. on the instant land pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act on the ground that the national rental housing of the instant business constituted a small-scale apartment house with a building area of 60 square meters or less, but the Plaintiff did not start within 4 years from December 31, 204 upon approval of the project plan on the instant project.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the Defendant can impose the additional collection in this case on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act that constitutes grounds for exemption under Article 289(1).

She Whether the disposition of collection in this case is legitimate

㈎ 추징처분은 일단 면제요건에 해당하면 그 세액을 면제하고 그 후에 당초의 면제취지에 합당한 사용을 하느냐에 대한 사후관리의 측면에서 규정한 것으로 본래의 부과처분과는 그 요건을 달리하는 별개의 처분이라고 할 것이므로, 추징처분이 해당 법에서 규정한 추징요건을 갖추지 못하였다면 그 추징처분은 위법한 처분이 되는 것이고, 면제요건을 갖추지 못하여 본래의 부과처분을 할 사유가 있다고 하더라도 그와 같은 사정이 위법한 추징처분을 적법한 것으로 할 사유가 될 수 없다( 대법원 2001. 3. 9. 선고 99두11677 판결 등 참조).

However, the decision of exemption of this case was made pursuant to Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, and there is no provision on collection of acquisition tax, etc. exempted from the decision of exemption of acquisition tax, etc. under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act.

In light of the above legal principles and the provisions of the Act, if the Plaintiff’s application for exemption of acquisition tax, etc. under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act with respect to the acquisition of the instant land, the Defendant examined the requirements under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act and issued a disposition of exemption from acquisition tax, etc. if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land satisfies the requirements for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, and if it does not meet the requirements for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, it would make a disposition of exemption from acquisition tax, etc. under the Local Tax Act. If the Plaintiff rendered a decision of exemption due to mistake, etc. even though it does not meet the requirements for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, it shall be revoked pursuant to Article

㈏ 지방세법 제289조 제1항 에서 정한 면제요건에 해당하려면 원고가 국가 또는 지방자치단체의 계획에 따라 제3자에게 공급할 목적으로 대통령령이 정하는 사업에 사용하기 위하여 일시 취득하는 부동산이어야 하고, 같은 법 제269조 제1항 에서 정한 면제요건에 해당하려면 원고가 임대를 목적으로 취득하여 소유하는 소규모 공동주택용 부동산이어야 하므로 그 요건이 전혀 다르고, 여기에 지방세법 제292조 , 같은 법 시행령 제231조 , 같은 법 시행규칙 117조 의 규정에 의하면 지방세 감면신청과 지방세 감면신청에 대한 통지는 일정한 서식에 의하여 하도록 규정하고 있는 점과 지방세법 제294조 에 의하면 동일한 과세대상에 대하여 지방세를 감면함에 있어 2이상의 감면규정이 적용되는 경우에는 그 중 감면율이 높은 것 하나만을 적용한다고 규정하고 있는 점을 더하여 보면, 피고가 원고의 이 사건 토지 취득이 지방세법 제289조 제1항 및 지방세법 제269조 제1항 의 면제요건에 모두 해당한다고 보고 원고에게 유리한 사후 추징규정이 없는 지방세법 제289조 제1항 의 면제요건을 적용하여 이 사건 면제결정을 한 이상 이를 지방세법 제269조 제1항 의 면제요건에도 해당한다고 보아 지방세법 제269조 제3항 에 의한 추징처분을 할 수는 없다고 할 것이다.

Although the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land does not meet the requirements for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, which is a real estate temporarily acquired for the purpose of supplying it to a third party according to the State’s plan, if the Defendant erroneously understood the requirements for exemption under Article 289(1) of the Local Tax Act, and thus the Defendant rendered the instant decision of exemption, it shall be deemed that the instant decision of exemption is a decision of exemption under Article 269(1) of the Local Tax Act, and it cannot be subject to a disposition of additional collection under Article 269(3) of the Local Tax Act, regardless of cancelling the instant decision of exemption and imposing acquisition tax, etc. under the provisions of the Local Tax Act, to the extent that it does not

㈐ 따라서 피고가 지방세법 제289조 제1항 에 의한 이 사건 면제결정을 한 후 사후에 이를 지방세법 269조 제1항 에 의한 면제처분으로 보아 지방세법 제269조 제3항 에 따라 이 사건 추징처분을 한 것은 위법하다 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the collection disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and all of the plaintiff's claim is revoked and accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Man-tae (Presiding Judge)