beta
Text
1. The part of the acquisition tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 8, 2013, which was KRW 5,538,000, and the local education tax.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on March 8, 201, acquired securitization assets in KRW 128.2 billion, including loan claims secured by A Apartment 608 Dong-dong 601 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Industrial Bank of Korea, the asset holder of which was the asset holder on March 29, 201.
B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure of the instant real estate and was decided to permit the sale of the instant real estate as the purchaser on July 5, 201, and paid the sale price on August 22, 201.
C. On September 201, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, local education tax, and special agricultural and fishing villages tax calculated by deducting 50/100 of the tax amount pursuant to Articles 120(1)12 and 119(1)13 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) with respect to the instant real estate as the tax base of KRW 750,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant.
On May 8, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the acquisition of the instant real property does not fall under those subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under the former Act, and imposed KRW 23,468,700 on the Plaintiff, including acquisition tax of KRW 20,538,00 and additional tax of KRW 403,80,00, including additional tax of KRW 5,538,000 and KRW 1,903,80,026,90, including additional tax of KRW 276,90.
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Article 120(1)9 of the new Act on the Claim for Reduction and Exemption of Acquisition Tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not limited to the direct succession and acquisition of real estate from an originator or a special purpose company for the following reasons.