beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 279,322,440 against the Plaintiff on July 11, 2016 is revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was established on March 17, 2003 and engaged in trade business, other day, and wholesale sales business, and acquired the instant land in full on April 30, 2012, by concluding a land sale contract with the Korea Water Resources Corporation for distribution facilities of 1578-3,660 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) with the Korea Water Resources Corporation on February 27, 2012.
The plaintiff on April 19, 2012 and the same year
5. 18. The instant land was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. by the Defendant on the ground that it was acquired by a person who intends to directly engage in logistics business in a logistics complex under Article 71(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 11618, Jan. 1, 2013) as “real estate for logistics business acquired by a person
B. After the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, the Plaintiff newly built an office and other warehouse facilities 2,647.26 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on December 3, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff reported that the instant building was acquired as “real estate for logistics business” under Article 71(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12955, Dec. 31, 2014) (hereinafter “instant provision”) and was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. by the Defendant.
(c) Incheon Metropolitan City from January 4, 2016 to the same year.
2. Until March 23, 2016, the Incheon Seo-gu Incheon Incheon Incheon Logistics Complex planning and tax investigation in 2016, determined that “the Plaintiff is not subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax because it uses the land and buildings of this case as the Plaintiff’s storage storage, etc., other than the logistics business, for the Plaintiff’s own company, and thus does not fall under reduction or exemption of acquisition tax,” and the Defendant issued a decision against the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016 as a result of the above investigation (including additional tax) and the acquisition tax on the land of this case.