logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.18 2014구합23095
재산세부과처분취소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that has been entrusted with the land and buildings of the instant golf course by F Co., Ltd., which establishes and operates a membership golf club (hereinafter “instant golf course”).

B. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant imposed a total of KRW 746,735,50 (land) property tax (land) and KRW 986,00 (347,100), total of KRW 149,347,60, and local education tax) on the land B 4,212 square meters (land property tax) in the year 2014; KRW 4,009,824 for local education tax (total of KRW 4,81,788), and KRW 801,964 for local education tax (total of KRW 4,81,788), on July 11, 2016, the Defendant imposed a total of KRW 2016 (land property tax) in the year 2010,250, KRW 190, KRW 3465,205, KRW 20657, KRW 26365,207, KRW 4675,2065,276465).

[1] The disposition of imposition of property tax for the regular (land) property tax for the year 2014 on B- 4,212 square meters of land within Dong-dong, Dong-si, which is indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), and the disposition of imposition of property tax for the fixed (land) property tax for the year 201,964 of local education tax, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 4,574,608 of property tax for C-ground buildings in the year 2016.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (if available, each number shall be included; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Article 111(1)1 of the Local Tax Act, which is a legal basis for each disposition of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Part 40/100 of the tax base on land for a golf course: 40/100 of the tax base on land for a golf course, and part 40/100 of the tax base on land for a golf course under Article 13(5) in subparagraph 2(a) (hereinafter “each of the instant provisions”).

"It is against the principle of equality for the following reasons, and it is unconstitutional by excessively infringing the plaintiff's property right.

arrow