200-0691 (2000.08.04)

acquisition

Dismissal

It is reasonable to impose and notify the notice that the business was confirmed after having been equipped with the substance of entertainment bar business.

Article 112 of the Local Tax Act

The claimant's request for review shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of the original disposition;

처분청은 청구인들이 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지외 1필지 토지상에 건축물 520.16㎡(이하 “이건 부동산”이라 한다)를 취득한 후 취득세 등을 신고납부하였으나, 청구외 ㅇㅇㅇ이 이건 부동산에 유흥주점영업장으로 허가를 받아 고급오락장으로 사용하고 있으므로 이건 부동산의 취득가액(997,631,900원)에 지방세법 제112조제2항의 세율을 적용하여 산출한 세액에서 이미 납부한 세액을 차감한 취득세 95,772,530원, 농어촌특별세8,779,070원, 합계 104,551,600원(가산세 포함)을 2000. 5. 12.부과 고지하였다.

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

The claimant sought revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that the claimant entered into a lease contract with the lessee, but the lessor was not aware of the tenant's failure to pay part of the deposit. On January 4, 200, the claimant changed the use of the real estate to amusement facilities and operated a business with permission as an entertainment drinking house on January 4, 200, and later, the claimant returned the amusement facilities illegally changed due to the plaintiff's claim to the former sales facility, and the claim that the disposition authority imposed heavy acquisition tax is unjust even though the lawsuit is pending in the Incheon District Court.

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

A dispute over an objection request is whether a disposition of heavy taxation of acquisition tax is legitimate in a case where a lessee uses it for a high-class recreation center without the consent of a building lessor.

First of all, Article 112 (2) 4 of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-3 (3) 1 and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that entertainment taverns under Article 112 (2) 4 of the same Act, and Article 84-3 (3) 1 and (3) of the same Act, which are separated and semi-permanently partitioned, shall be equipped with two or more entertainment bars and entertainment bars that encourage entertainment guests to provide entertainment, and studs and restaurants whose overall business type takes place mainly

다음으로 이건의 경우를 보면, 처분청은 청구인들이 이건 부동산을 취득한 후 1999. 12월에 건축물 용도변경 신청을 하자 2000. 1. 4. 이건 부동산의 용도를 판매시설에서 위락시설로 변경통보하고, 2000. 1. 21. 청구외 ㅇㅇㅇ에게 유흥주점 영업허가(상호: ㅇㅇ룸클럽)를 하였고, 처분청의 담당공무원이 현지확인한 2000. 4. 3. 현재 유흥주점영업을 하고 있는 사실등을 처분청이 제출한 관계자료에서 알 수 있다.

In this regard, the claimant asserts that the tenant's use of this real estate as a amusement drinking house after obtaining permission for an entertainment drinking house and using it as a high-class recreation center is subject to cancellation of heavy taxation. However, if the real estate was acquired and operated by obtaining permission for an entertainment drinking house facility at the time of acquisition of real estate, and the present situation was objectively equipped with an substance as a place of business, it constitutes an entertainment drinking house business place, barring special circumstances. Whether the owner of the building has operated his/her business in the building or not is related, and even if the tenant who is not the owner of the building has operated his/her facility, it is subject to heavy taxation (the Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1889 delivered on April 28, 192, 192). In this case, the claimant's business place of this real estate has 18 guest rooms which are permanently partitioned after obtaining permission for an entertainment drinking house business, so long as it is confirmed in the local business statement of the public official in charge of the disposition agency, it can not be accepted as the claimant's assertion.

Therefore, since the claimant's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered in accordance with Article 77 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

September 26, 2000

Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice;