logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.07.20 2016구합11228
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s acquisition tax for the Plaintiff 94,148,370 won, local education tax for the year 2012, and KRW 5,830,550 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 18, 2009, the Plaintiff was an agricultural company established for the purpose of producing, distributing, processing, etc. agricultural and livestock products, and acquired ownership by paying KRW 2,230,00 on November 14, 201 to the Cheongju District Court for Voluntary Auction Procedures on the sum of KRW 9,850,00 square meters (excluding land C after this, the remaining land was combined with KRW 9,16,00; hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff was exempted from acquisition tax pursuant to Article 11(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013) on the ground that the instant land falls under real estate acquired within two years from the date of registration of incorporation for the purpose of farming. The Plaintiff was exempted from property tax for 2012 and property tax for 2012 pursuant to Article 11(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015) and was reduced by 50/100 of property tax for 2013, pursuant to Article 11(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) conducted on-site investigations on the instant land as of November 14, 2012 and August 12, 2014; and (b) conducted on-site inspections in 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land until one year after the date of acquisition thereof; and (c) deemed that the Plaintiff was not directly used for farming as of the tax base date for each of the property tax (hereinafter “instant property tax assessment basis date”); and (b) deemed that the reduced tax amount was not used for farming without justifiable grounds as of June 1, 2012; and (c) imposed and collected the local education tax on the Plaintiff as of November 5, 2014, including the property tax of 4,597,60, local education tax of 695,170, and local education tax of 4,642,210,702,030, and the property tax of 2013 including the additional tax of 2017, 3054,57,57

In this case, hereinafter referred to as "the case."

arrow