logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.12.20 2018구합3610
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. Acquisition tax assessed against the Plaintiff on November 9, 2017 is KRW 10,934,130, local education tax, KRW 522,00, and special rural development tax.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The conclusion of a sales contract and approval for the use of the instant building 1) Nonparty B, on December 14, 2016, shall be a multi-family house indicated in [Attachment List] to be newly built on a 230mm2 in the petitioner-gu, Cheongju-si, Seoul, his wife (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On May 3, 2017, B concluded a sales contract to sell the instant building that is scheduled to be completed with the Plaintiff to KRW 795 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on May 3, 2017, and received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on the same day, and the remaining intermediate payment of KRW 350 million from the Plaintiff was paid in lieu of the Plaintiff’s succession to the loan, and the remainder payment of KRW 395 million was paid in lieu of the Plaintiff’s succession to the loan, and the remainder of KRW 395 million was paid on July 15, 2017, which is the scheduled date of delivery of the instant building.

3) On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff changed the name of the building owner of the instant building to the Plaintiff. On July 17, 2017, the approval for use of the instant building was granted, and on the same day, the Plaintiff registered the building ledger of the instant building as the owner of the instant building. B) On August 1, 2017, as the court heading 2017Da108035 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2017, “The Plaintiff expressed its intent to return the down payment of the instant sales contract by asserting unilaterally nonperformance of B on July 22, 2017, and thus, the instant sales contract was revoked on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming confirmation that “The ownership of the instant building was acquired at the time of original acquisition of the instant building,” and the Plaintiff did not seek confirmation that the ownership of the instant building was completed on July 15, 2017 by the court below’s order 2017.

arrow