logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.07.17 2014구합20569
취득세 부과처분취소청구
Text

1. Acquisition tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 12, 2013, KRW 136,889,280, and local education tax; KRW 12,760,920.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From C (hereinafter “B”) who operated B on January 17, 201, the Plaintiff purchased land for factory in Busan-gun, 2,392 square meters and 2,902 square meters of land for factory in Busan-gun, and facilities for settlement incidental to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate” collectively including the instant real estate and the instant facilities), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 10, 201 under the Plaintiff’s name as to the instant real estate.

B. On September 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) issued a disposition on the instant real estate, etc. to the Plaintiff; (b) under Article 6(6)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Special Taxation Act”) imposing acquisition tax on the Plaintiff; (c) the instant real estate, etc. for business purposes cannot be deemed property of a small or medium start-up start-up enterprise on the ground that it is not eligible for exemption from acquisition tax, etc. under Article 120(3) of the former Special Taxation Act; and (d) imposed each disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed on November 6, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 25, 2014.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 6(6)1 of the former Special Assistance Act provides that “Where the Plaintiff acquires or purchases the assets used for the previous business and carries on the same kind of business (hereinafter “this part of the legal provision”).

The exclusion of ‘business start-up' is against the freedom of business start-up and the property rights, and is against the democratization of the economy.

arrow