Seocho 2012west 1668 (No. 30, 2012)

Unless land for the open storage place and container storage place designated and publicly notified pursuant to the Harbor Act is not land for the purpose of separate taxation, it shall not be regarded as special aggregate taxation.

In fact, even if land is used as land for a camping station and container storage station, so long as it is not land for a camping station and container storage station designated and publicly notified pursuant to the Harbor Act, it cannot be viewed as a special aggregate taxation, and it cannot be viewed as a public opinion sheet of the tax authority that the act publicly notified as a free economic zone or the return of a report on the construction of a free economic zone

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

The AAA et al.

Head of the District Tax Office and one other

December 18, 2012

January 24, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The head of Pyeongtaek-si Tax Office imposes upon Plaintiff A, (i) the imposition of Consolidated Real Estate Tax of KRW 000 and Special Rural Development Tax of KRW 000 for the year 201, and (ii) the imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2007 and Special Rural Development Tax of KRW 000 for the year 3, 2008, comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008, comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 00 for the year 2000 and special rural development tax of KRW 00 for the year 2010, and each imposition of KRW 00 for comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 00 for the year 200 and special rural development tax of KRW 00 for the year 200 for the year 200, and KRW 6291 and KRW 40 for each special rural development tax of KRW 30 for the year 2012.

2. The class (i) that the director of the regional tax office against the Plaintiff E, and (ii) that on December 1, 2011, belongs to the 2011.

The imposition of the combined real estate tax of KRW 000 and special rural development tax of KRW 000, and ② the imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 000 and special rural development tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009, comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 000 for special rural development tax of KRW 00 for the year 2010, and KRW 000 for comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 00 for the year 2007, and KRW 00 for special rural development tax of KRW 00 for the year 2007, and each imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of KRW 00 for the year 2008 and special rural development tax of KRW 00 for the year 200.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고들은 평택시 포승읍 OO리 000 창고용지 12，804㎡， 같은 리 000 창고 용지 1，333㎡， 같은 리 0000 창고용지 11，308㎡， 같은 리 0000 창고용지 6，150㎡， 같은 리 0000 창고용지 14，170㎡(5필지 합계 45，765㎡)의 각 1/2 지분을 소유하고 있다.

B. The head of Pyeongtaek-si office confirmed the current status of use of the above land in relation to the imposition of property tax, and divided the above land into 30,036.62 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) into the land subject to general aggregate taxation and notified the Defendants thereof.

C. According to the notice of change in the property tax data by the head of office office of Pyeongtaek-si, the Defendants: (a) deemed the instant land as land subject to general aggregate taxation and notified the Plaintiffs of the comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the year 2007 through 2011, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed all of them.

[Based on recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1) Although the instant land is normally used for economic activities as land for the open storage site and container storage site, the instant disposition that applied the heavy taxation rate by deeming it as being the same as the site is unlawful in violation of the legislative intent of the comprehensive real estate tax law.

2) In imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax on the land of this case by publicly announcing the whole land of this case as a yellow Sea Free Economic Zone, it is unlawful to apply the heavy taxation rate by deeming it as a site without a building to be a site without any building.

3) The former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23482, Dec. 31, 201); and

(n) The latter part of Article 103(1) of the Building Act provides that a building, the commencement of which is restricted pursuant to Article 18 of the Building Act, shall be deemed the land on which the building is located and shall be deemed the land subject to special aggregate taxation, and the instant disposition taken against the land subject to general aggregate taxation is unlawful even though the instant

4) Although the instant land had a Docking facility and a concrete floor packaging facility, the instant disposition that deemed a site without a building as a site subject to general aggregate taxation was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 11 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act provides that comprehensive real estate holding tax on land shall be imposed separately for aggregate taxation and special aggregate taxation under Article 106 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1124, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) because the legislative purpose of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the land is not so unreasonable that it is difficult for the Mayor/Do Governor to distinguish the land from the aggregate taxation subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation and the taxation subject to separate taxation under Article 106 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, while Article 106 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that the land is not subject to comprehensive taxation (No. 1) and the land which is owned by him/her as of the tax base date for separate taxation subject to comprehensive taxation or separate taxation subject to separate taxation for the purpose of using the same type of land, such as land for which comprehensive real estate holding tax on the land is not subject to separate taxation subject to separate taxation or for other purposes, such as land for which comprehensive taxation is not subject to separate taxation and publicly notified by the Governor.

2) Judgment on the second argument

In general, to apply the principle of trust and good faith to tax relations, the tax authorities should express the public view that taxpayers are trusted, and the taxpayer should not be responsible to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer should trust and trust the tax authorities' opinions, and the taxpayer should do so, and the taxpayer should do so, and the taxpayer should do so, and the tax authorities should do so, and the taxpayer's interest should be infringed by making a disposition contrary to the above opinion list. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002) Since the disposition of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of trust and good faith, it is not necessary to interpret the provision of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is illegal or not, and the provision of this case should not be applied to the free economic zone government's comprehensive real estate holding tax, and the provision of this case's land should not be applied to the 17th anniversary of the total area of this case's land which includes the land of this case, and the 17th Free Economic Zone.15.

3) Judgment on the third argument

Article 11 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provide that the land annexed to a building prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the land annexed to a factory building, shall be subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax on land, as separate taxation and separate taxation (Article 106 (1) 2 (a) of the former Local Tax Act) and Article 101 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be

Article 106(1)2 (a) of the Local Tax Act provides that one of the land annexed to a building shall be the land subject to separate taxation within the scope of the area calculated by multiplying the floor area of the building by the applicable multiple by specific-use area. Meanwhile, Article 103(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “a building permit has been granted as of the tax base date for the scope of the building pursuant to Article 101(1) but the construction is restricted pursuant to Article 18 of the Building Act.” As seen earlier, the health unit for the instant case, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs were returned after the construction report for the extension of the building on the instant land, and there was no building permit for the instant land under Article 103(1) of the former Enforcement Decree, and the instant land does not fall under the land annexed to the building under Article 101(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

4) Judgment on the fourth argument

A) Article 11 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 2 (a) of the former Local Tax Act provide that land annexed to buildings prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as land annexed to buildings for factories, shall be subject to separate taxation; and Article 6 (4) of the former Local Tax Act provides that buildings mean buildings and land under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Building Act and leisure facilities fixed on the underground or other structures, and leisure facilities, storage facilities, and landing facilities, and Article 5 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that Docking facilities and landing facilities under Article 6 (4) of the former Local Tax Act refer to Docking and shipbuilding facilities in order to build and repair ships.

2) According to the health stand and evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 11 of the plaintiffs' assertion on the land of this case, Doc facilities claimed by the plaintiffs are merely Doc facilities for the purpose of loading and unloading of container vehicles or storing them after loading and unloading, and they cannot be seen as Doc facilities. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that Doccc facilities on the land of this case exist on the land of this case is without merit. Meanwhile, Article 6 subparagraph 4 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 2 (1) subparagraph 2 of the Building Act provide that "building" means those with a roof and columns or walls (hereinafter referred to as "building") among the structures settled on the land and those annexed thereto, and those attached thereto are all the buildings and appurtenant thereto, and the floors of the plaintiffs' assertion that the floor of the concrete package is a structure on the land of this case, and therefore, it is difficult to view the building and the warehouse of this case as a whole.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed because they are without merit.