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, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired securitization assets in KRW 1,51.3 billion from the asset holder to a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, and from the asset holder on June 24, 2010, securitization assets, including loans secured by 105 Dongcopon 1101, Dobong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure of the instant real estate and was decided to permit the sale of the instant real estate as the purchaser on November 15, 201, and paid the sale price on December 26, 201.
C. On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax of KRW 7,740,000, local education tax, KRW 774,000, KRW 7774,000, KRW 8,900,000, total of KRW 8,000, KRW 90,000, and KRW 8,901,000,000 under Article 120(1)12 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”).
Accordingly, on February 10, 2014, the Defendant did not correspond to those subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax under the former Act; however, it constitutes reduction or exemption of 50% by multi-family housing owners under Article 40-2 of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, and accordingly, imposed special rural development tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that special rural development tax should be imposed in accordance with the Act on Special Rural Development. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including all paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Article 120 (1) 9 of the New Act asserts that acquisition tax reduction or exemption is asserted by the Plaintiff’s assertion, based on the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the New Act.