The judgment below

Of these, imposition of additional tax on negligent tax on acquisition tax and additional tax on arrears and special tax for rural development.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 105(5) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; enforced January 1, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “If the value increases due to a de facto change of land category of land, it shall be deemed acquisition.” Article 73(9) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 22395, Sept. 20, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “acquisition following a change of land category shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date the land category is de facto changed, but with respect to the portion temporarily used prior to the date of land category change, it shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date it is actually used.”

In addition, Article 112 (1) and (2) 2 of the former Local Tax Act provides that the standard tax rate of acquisition tax shall be 20/1,000 of the value of acquired articles, but the tax rate of acquisition tax shall be 50/100 of the standard tax rate only for golf courses located in the Seoul Metropolitan area if real estate falling under golf courses is acquired on or before December 31, 2010.

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, based on the premise that the duty to pay acquisition tax pursuant to Article 105(5) of the former Local Tax Act was established on December 25, 2010 on the following grounds: (a) since December 25, 2010, it is difficult to view the demonstration of the instant golf course as being carried out in some sections of the instant golf course; and (b) even if the demonstration of the instant golf course was carried out from that time, the instant golf course at the time was not completed to the extent that the construction was not completed to the extent that it could substantially pilot the instant golf course; and (c) thus, it cannot be deemed that the portion was actually used.

Examining the records in light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.