Suwon District Court 201Guhap3758 (O6.19)

The original preservation area in the golf course shall be deemed forest land subject to separate taxation.

The original preservation in the golf course may be deemed forest land necessary for the protection and fostering of forests, and such parts shall not be deemed land subject to general aggregate taxation, and it shall be deemed land subject to separate taxation.

Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2012Nu2037 Revocation of the imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.

AAAA club Co., Ltd.

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3758 Decided June 19, 2012

August 27, 2013

November 8, 2013

1. The remainder of judgment in the first instance, excluding the dismissed part, shall be revoked;

2. The defendant's assertion against the plaintiff

(a) Disposition imposing OOO of comprehensive real estate holding tax on November 1, 2010 and OOO of special rural development tax on 205;

B. Disposition of imposition of OOO of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2006 on January 3, 201 and OOO of special rural development tax;

(c) the imposition of the gross real estate tax on January 3, 201 207 by OOOO or special rural development tax on January 3, 201;

D. Imposition of an OO of comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2010 on November 16, 2010 and OO of a special rural development tax for rural development tax for 2010

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the KRW 005 Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and the KRW O00 of the Special Rural Development Tax for the Plaintiff on November 1, 201, the imposition of the KRW 2006 Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and the KRW O0 of the Special Rural Development Tax for the Plaintiff, the imposition of the KRW 2006 on January 3, 201, the imposition of the KRW 007 Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and the KRW O00 on January 3, 201, the imposition of the KRW 207 Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and the KRW O0 on the Special Rural Development Tax, and the imposition of the KRW O0 on the KRW 207 on November 16, 2010.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

[Judgment of the first instance court rejected the lawsuit on the portion exceeding the OOO of comprehensive real estate holding tax and the OOO of special rural development tax among the imposition of OOO of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2005 and OOOO of special rural development tax stated in the above purport of claim, and the plaintiff did not appeal this dismissed portion]

1. Comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.:

The following facts are acknowledged as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 3 and Eul evidence of 1 to 7 (including paper numbers).

[1]

"OO-gu O-dong O-dong 198-14 (hereinafter "O-dong 198") operated a membership golf course with the trade name "B-dong 198-14 (hereinafter "the instant golf course")." The plaintiff reported the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2005, 2006, and 207, and reported the original preservation area (18 lots, such as O-dong 198, O-dong 198) within the instant golf course as land subject to separate taxation." "O-dong 198, 194.5 square meters (hereinafter "the original preservation area in this case")." The defendant deemed the land subject to comprehensive taxation on the original preservation area in this case as land subject to comprehensive taxation, and imposed O-O-O-O-O and special rural development tax in 201, 300,000,0000,000,0000,000,000 won on November 1, 201.

[2]

"The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 14, 201. The Tax Tribunal divided OO-Gu O-dong 198-40 and 64,103 square meters of land subject to separate taxation among the original preservation area in the original preservation area in the case, and decided that "the tax base and tax amount of the disposition are corrected". "The defendant, according to the ○○, on November 23, 201 and July 29, 201, after 2005, reduced OOOOO and special tax for rural development in 2006 to OOOO and special tax for rural development in 2006, and reduced OO and special tax for rural development in 207 to OOO and special tax for rural development in 207, OO and special tax for rural development in 207."

[3]

"On the other hand, the defendant, among the original preservation land of this case, deemed the above 64,103 square meters of land subject to separate taxation, and the remaining 251,441.5 square meters of the remaining 251,441.5 square meters of land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation (hereinafter referred to as "the land subject to separate taxation") shall be deemed land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation, and the plaintiff was subject to imposition of the gross real estate tax for 2010 and the special rural development tax for OOOO on November 16, 2010."

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant: (a) deemed the land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation in the original form of the instant case as a land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation; (b) imposed comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 64,103 square meters in the original form of the instant land to be subject to separate taxation according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal; and (c) accordingly, the said comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax were reduced or corrected by deeming the said comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax as a land subject to separate taxation. This is deemed to be a land subject to comprehensive taxation, excluding the said 64,103 square meters in its original form of land. Since the actual state of preservation in the original form

In addition, since the Defendant considered the issue-based comprehensive real estate tax and special tax for rural development was imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 2010 by deeming it as land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation, this is also unlawful for the above reasons.

"Disposition in this case" (hereinafter collectively referred to as "disposition in this case") and 3. "3."

(1) Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010);

According to Article 182(1)3 (b) of the Local Tax Act and Article 132(2)5 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sep. 20, 2010), forests and fields necessary for protecting and fostering forests, which are forest land within development-restricted zones under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, are subject to separate taxation, and are not subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax.

Therefore, even if the original form preservation land is located in a development restriction zone, in order to be subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax under the Local Tax Act because it falls under the land subject to separate taxation under the above provisions, its main purpose should be considered to fall under forest land. In addition, as stipulated in Article 182 (1) 3 (b) of the Local Tax Act, it shall fall under forest land necessary for the protection and protection of forest as well as forest land. (2) If the purport of the whole pleadings is to be taken into account on the entries and video of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including the paper number) of the above Local Tax Act, the issue original form preservation land is classified into sports land. The issue original form preservation land is classified into land category, and considerable part of the original form preservation land is naturally located outside the boundaries or golf courses and plays an important role in the landscape and landscape of golf courses, and it is deemed that it constitutes a golf course incorporated into the land subject to comprehensive taxation, such as golf courses, which is not necessary for the protection and protection of forests.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including a branch number), some of the key issues in the original conservation area are acknowledged to form a slope in contact with other forests and fields in the outer boundary of a golf course. As such, it is difficult to view that a tree is incorporated into another land, such as a golf course in a golf course, and, in the case of a forest located in a development-restricted area, the forest that is naturally formed and formed a slope, and is located in a development-restricted area, it is difficult to regard it as a land constituting a golf course with other land, such as a golf course in a golf course, and it can be deemed as a forest necessary for protecting and fostering a forest, and such part cannot be deemed as a land subject to a general aggregate taxation,

Therefore, the disposition of this case where comprehensive real estate holding tax and special tax for rural development is imposed on the plaintiff, considering the whole of the controversial preservation land as land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation.

However, there is no evidence to specify the portion that cannot be deemed a land subject to general aggregate taxation as above among the key original preservation areas, and according to the statement Nos. 8 and 9 (including the paper number), the Tax Tribunal determines to the effect that it should re-examine whether the land is preserved in its original form, which is linked to the outer boundary of the golf course and the golf course, with regard to the original preservation area in its original form, and that it should be subject to separate taxation on the relevant portion. Accordingly, it is only recognized that the head of Seoyangyang-si is a land subject to separate taxation of 84,00 square meters of the original preservation area in question and the property tax was imposed on the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in the disposition of this case where the comprehensive real estate tax and special tax for rural development is imposed on the Plaintiff by deeming the issues of the original preservation area as a land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation, there is no evidence to specify the portion corresponding to the land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation among the main preservation area in its original form, and the part corresponding to the land subject to separate taxation, and ultimately, the entire disposition of

(3) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful, since it is imposed on the land subject to the general aggregate taxation under the Local Tax Act and the comprehensive real estate holding tax is imposed on the Plaintiff, by deeming the head of Gyeyang-si to be the land subject to the general aggregate taxation.

However, just because the imposition disposition of the property tax on the same land is already finalized, the taxpayer cannot contest whether the land constitutes the land subject to the comprehensive real estate holding tax assessment. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the remaining part except the dismissed part in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the remaining part except the dismissed part in the judgment of the court of first instance and accepting the plaintiff's claim.