logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.09.01 2016구합228
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2013, the Republic of Korea (China Regional Forest Administration) issued a public notice of the electronic bid (5th disposition of standing timber) for sale of state forest products (5th disposition of standing timber) with the content that the state forest products (5th disposition of standing timber) will be sold, as well as Class 1,203.53 square meters of trees (7,847; hereinafter “instant standing timber”) other than active running trees on one parcel other than B, Chungcheongnam-si, a state forest, B, and one parcel other than state forest.

B. On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of state forest products (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Republic of Korea to purchase the instant standing timber in KRW 58,880,000 after participating in the said bidding and becoming a successful bidder, and paid the remainder on December 17, 2013.

C. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 1,603,530 (including additional taxes) and special rural development tax of KRW 136,800 (including additional taxes) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay and pay acquisition tax on the said standing timber. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the specific details of calculation of acquisition tax and additional tax.

Accordingly, on June 10, 2016, the Defendant revoked ex officio each of the above dispositions during the instant lawsuit, and issued each disposition imposing acquisition tax of KRW 1,177,60 and additional tax of KRW 425,930, and special rural development tax of KRW 117,760 and additional tax of KRW 19,040 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 3 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is not standing timber but standing timber to acquire it substantially through the instant contract. In light of the content of the instant contract and the purport of the relevant statutes, the subject matter of the instant contract is not standing timber.

arrow