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 June 1, 2004, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building 2949.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Gu, American, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership on November 27, 2013.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that the instant building constitutes “real estate acquired by a person who seeks to construct industrial buildings, etc. in an industrial complex, etc.” under Article 78(4) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12175, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter “instant reduction or exemption provision”). Totaling KRW 52,249,260 (i.e., acquisition tax amounting to KRW 49,424,980) from the Defendant was reduced or exempted.
C. After that, the Plaintiff agreed to convert B into a corporation, and entered into an investment in kind with Company B (hereinafter “instant corporation”) that is a company during the establishment on June 29, 2015.
The instant corporation was established on August 27, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant building on September 10, 2015 due to investment in kind as of June 29, 2015.
Meanwhile, since the incorporation of the instant legal entity, the Plaintiff owned 100% of shares as an internal director, and operated the instant legal entity.
E. As a result of the guidance and inspection of Gyeong-do in 2019, the portion of acquisition tax imposed on the Plaintiff was pointed out. The Defendant, “The reduction due to the extension of construction in an industrial complex was directly used for its original purpose for at least two years, but the investment in kind was made within two years from the date of acquisition (which was November 18, 2013), and the investment in kind constitutes sale, and thus, is scheduled to impose acquisition tax, etc. on the Plaintiff for the reason of additional collection under Article 78(5)2 of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant additional collection provision”).
F. On July 5, 2019, the Defendant: (a) acquisition tax on the Plaintiff on July 5, 2019 as follows: