It is insufficient to recognize that there is a serious defect in the taxation disposition of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

It is insufficient to recognize that there was a serious defect in the instant taxation disposition, and even if there was a defect, it is difficult to view that the defect in the instant taxation disposition was objectively obvious to the Defendant, and therefore, the instant taxation disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course.

Articles 3 and 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2015 Ghana 5132433 Undue gains

AAA, Inc.

Korea

November 13, 2015

December 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 122,43,780 and KRW 38,896,730 among them, KRW 40,549,810 from February 1, 2013, KRW 42,987, and KRW 240 from February 15, 2013, KRW 42,987, and KRW 240 from December 13, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and KRW 15 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Taxation against the plaintiff

From 2010 to 2013, the director of the tax office affiliated with the defendant imposed comprehensive real estate tax on the land listed in the attached Table 2 list owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") and special rural development tax, which is the object tax imposed on the premise of the tax liability (hereinafter referred to as "the taxation of this case" in total, and "the attached tax of this case" in total, and "the attached tax of this case") as shown in attached Table 1, and the plaintiff paid the attached tax of this case on each of the relevant payment dates stated in attached Table 1.

B. Plaintiff’s housing construction project

1) The Plaintiff is a company that registered as a housing construction business entity on September 20, 2007 and conducts housing construction and sales business.

2) On August 29, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted an application for approval of the housing construction project plan to newly build 29,198.20m20m2, building area, 5,710.37m2, total floor area, 75,678m2 on the land outside 151 and 78 m20m2, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor. On March 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition to return the said application on March 9, 2009. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the said return on April 14, 2010 with the OO District Court Decision 2009Guhap2056, and the said court issued a new decision to revoke the said return on April 14, 2010. However, the CC mayor appealed appealed appealed and the Plaintiff 20000 m2747m27, 2010.

3) On the other hand, around June 2013, the construction of the new CC DD D D D D D D D D D DD on the ground of the above DDDD 151 and 76 lots was started, and the construction is in progress up to now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the instant taxation, the instant taxation was conducted by a housing construction business entity under Article 106(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 102(5)7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, on land for which the housing construction business entity obtained approval of a business plan under the Housing Act to construct housing, and which is provided for a housing construction business entity, and thus cannot be subject to general aggregate taxation. In addition, the North Korean head ofCC, from 2010 to 2013, imposed property tax by classifying the instant land as general aggregate taxation. The instant disposition of imposing property tax, which is the preceding disposition, has significant and apparent defects, and was succeeded to the instant taxation, which is the subsequent disposition. Therefore, the instant taxation is null and void on the ground that there is a significant and obvious reason to believe, and thus, the portion attributable to the year 2012, the portion attributable to the year 2012, and the portion attributable to the year 2013, and the unjust enrichment of KRW 43,780.

3. Determination

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

B. Whether the instant taxation disposition is void as a matter of course

1) In order for the relevant legal disposition to be called a void as a matter of course, the fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient to be sufficient to say that there is an objective reason, and it should be objectively clear that the defect violates the important laws and regulations, and in determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, which serve as the basis for the pertinent taxation, should be examined in a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration should be made on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it clear that the defect is grave and obvious, but in a case where there are any legal relations or factual relations that are not subject to taxation, which are not subject to taxation, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation, which misleads the fact of taxation, is necessarily null and void, even if it is serious and void (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da24986, Jul. 10, 201).

In light of the following circumstances, even if the defect in the instant taxation disposition was objectively apparent to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the instant taxation disposition is void as a matter of course, since it is difficult to view that the defect in the instant taxation disposition was objectively apparent to the Defendant in light of the aforementioned basic facts and the overall purport of the evidence revealed in light of the fact as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a serious defect as alleged by the Plaintiff in the instant taxation disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

① Even if the Plaintiff obtained the approval of the housing construction project plan from theCC market on September 17, 2010, the said KCCS Newly Building Corporation commenced the construction project around June 2013 and did not proceed with the new apartment construction project at the time of each tax base date of the instant tax assessment ( June 1, 201).

(2) In order to consider the land as being provided for a housing construction project, in addition to the approval of the project plan under the Housing Act, the land in this case should function as the site for the actual construction of the housing, and such circumstance seems to have been revealed after the specific investigation of facts.

③ With the revision of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act on January 11, 2007, comprehensive real estate holding tax was converted from the previous tax return to the imposition method. There is no evidence to deem that BB director of the tax office knew or was in a position to easily understand the current status of the use of the instant land in the process of the instant tax assessment (in the case of theCC market, there is no room to deem that it was in a position to relatively easily understand the current status of the use of the instant land while participating in the Plaintiff’s approval for the housing construction project plan, but there is no such circumstance with

④ The head of the competent district tax office having the authority to impose the comprehensive real estate holding tax under the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act shall impose the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the basis of the data on property tax for the pertinent year received from the head of the competent Si/Gun, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the head of the competent tax office has the duty to conduct an investigation on the current status as well as the duty to conduct an investigation unless the need for separate investigation arises to determine whether the pertinent land is subject to taxation (it is difficult to view that the disposition to impose the property tax by the head of the North Korea Office at the time ofCC was prior

⑤ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff filed a report with the director of BB on the fact that the instant land is being provided for a housing construction project or filed an application for exclusion from summing-up in connection with the imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.