logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.05.30 2013누51116
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 8, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired a building with a total floor area of 314.53 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the same ground on March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 3,362,950, including acquisition tax, calculated by applying general tax rates on April 26, 2010.

B. On April 27, 2012, the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff used the instant land and C, ditch C, 463 square meters owned by the non-party Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter “the instant land”) as the land annexed to the instant housing. The instant housing included the instant land, thereby satisfying the requirements for high-class housing by exceeding 60 million won (613,000,000), and that the individual housing price exceeds 60 million won. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant imposed an imposition and collection on the Plaintiff based on the tax base at KRW 560,031,976, the acquisition price of the instant housing, which is KRW 560,031,976, which is the acquisition price of the instant housing, and the tax amount calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate under Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 18, 2012, but was dismissed on December 11, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-6, Eul evidence 1-6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the land No. 2 cannot be deemed as the land annexed to the instant house, taking full account of the following reasons, cannot be deemed as being the land annexed to the instant house. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the housing price, including the price of the instant land No.

① The Plaintiff did construction work on the land No. 2.

arrow