beta
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 January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant land and the instant building (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) KRW 3,700,000; and (c) reported and paid KRW 148,00,000 for acquisition tax, special rural development tax, KRW 7,400,000 for rural education tax, and KRW 14,800,000 for local education tax, respectively.
B. Since then, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the instant real estate constitutes real estate “real estate” under Article 20 subparag. 2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) and applied for acquisition tax reduction on March 7, 2012; (b) the Defendant reduced acquisition tax by 50/100 on March 9, 2012; and (c) refunded acquisition tax of 74,00,000, special rural development tax of 3,700,000, local education tax of 7,400,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively.
C. On January 3, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the instant real estate was donated to D, and deemed that it constitutes a donation under the condition that the period of direct use under Article 94 subparagraph 2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act was less than two years, and imposed and notified acquisition tax reduced or exempted for the Plaintiff on April 4, 2014, KRW 90,132,00, special rural development tax, KRW 3,76,600, and local education tax, KRW 8,273,200 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 2, 2014, but was dismissed on February 27, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “direct use” under Article 94 subparag. 2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act ought to be objectively determined based on the actual use relationship. The Plaintiff’s business registration was made from March 14, 201, or obtained approval for use of the instant building from May 26, 201.