Whether the requirements for imposition of acquisition tax under Article 105 (5) of the Local Tax Act are satisfied where the value of replotting due to a replotting disposition increases above the value of the previous land.

When the land category of a substitute land considered to be a previous land has changed due to a replotting disposition due to a land readjustment project, the value thereof has increased, it shall meet the requirements for imposition of acquisition tax under Article 105 (5) of

Articles 105 and 111 of the Local Tax Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The attorney of the plaintiff shall revoke the tax disposition that the defendant imposed the acquisition tax of KRW 114,208 on the plaintiff from No. 179 of Dec. 15, 1971 to No. 1780 of Dec. 171, 1971.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

1. The defendant imposed a tax of KRW 114,208 upon the plaintiff on December 15, 1971 as stated in the purport of the claim for acquisition tax in 1971 shall be deemed as Gap evidence 2 (Objection), evidence 3 (Notice of Decision), evidence 1 Eul, and evidence 2 (Notice of Investigation) respectively, and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings. However, although the plaintiff had owned the original 82-2 miscellaneous land 951 square meters in Seocho-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, but the above 951 square meters in the above 1971, as stated in the purport of the claim, before the tax disposition (No. 15, 1971), the land category of the above 150 square meters in the Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the previous 201 square meters in the land lot and the previous 1500 square meters in the land lot (No. 324, 1971) and the previous 1951 square meters in the land lot price of the land of which had been actually acquired by 1571.61 square meters in the land.

2. The plaintiff's attorney asserts that even if the land price of the above miscellaneous land owned by the plaintiff was changed to the new land (land substitution) whose value was increased due to the land readjustment project, the application of Articles 105 (5) and 111 (3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 82 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is illegal and even if the above Article of the same Act is applied, the above Article of the Act violates the fundamental spirit of the Constitution, and thus, the above provision of the Act is invalid in violation of the basic spirit of the Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff

Since the above miscellaneous land 951, which was owned by the plaintiff, was recognized as above as the fact that the miscellaneous land 951 square meters around 332 square meters (divided number 74 A) and 199 square meters (divided number 74B) due to a replotting disposition, the above miscellaneous land shall be deemed to be the previous land regardless of whether the miscellaneous land has been registered pursuant to Article 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act from the day following the day of the public notice of the replotting disposition. However, in imposing acquisition tax, Article 105 (5) of the Local Tax Act provides that "where the miscellaneous land increases due to a de facto change of land category, it shall be deemed to have been acquired" and Article 111 (3) of the Local Tax Act provides that "where the miscellaneous land has increased due to a replotting disposition, the miscellaneous land category of the previous land which is deemed to have been changed shall be interpreted as falling under a case where the miscellaneous land category and the value of the previous land is actually different.

In the same way, the defendant's main disposition of this case (it is not a dispute between the parties in respect of the calculation of the amount of tax, as long as the provisions of the Local Tax Act are applicable to the calculation of the amount of tax imposed by the defendant) on which the acquisition tax was imposed based on the value higher than that of the previous land among the values of the above substitute land that the plaintiff received due to a replotting disposition, and the items and rates of tax shall not be deemed to be in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea as prescribed by the provisions of Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

In this case, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is without merit under the premise that this taxation is null and void as a matter of course, and the costs of the lawsuit are dismissed and decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)