logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.04 2014가합588956
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 2,770,527 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from December 12, 2014 to September 4, 2015; and (b) for each of the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs purchased Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Site (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in 1/2 shares, and newly constructed a building of reinforced concrete structure of 137.58 square meters in total floor area, 151.98 square meters in 1/200, 248.96 square meters in 165.44 square meters in underground, 165.44 square meters in 165.44 square meters in 2nd, 137.58 square meters in 551.98 square meters in 201. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer in 1/2 shares in the instant building.

B. The Plaintiffs delegated the registration of ownership preservation and payment of acquisition tax, etc. to the Defendant, a certified judicial scrivener (the “person to whom the acquisition tax return” (No. 4) of the instant building was delegated). Under the delegation agreement, the Defendant received acquisition tax amounting to KRW 33,532,840 calculated by applying the general tax rate under the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12118, Dec. 26, 2013; hereinafter the same) to KRW 1,197,60,670, pursuant to the delegation agreement, around December 2, 2013, the Defendant received from the Plaintiffs and filed a return on the acquisition tax amounting to KRW 33,532,840, special tax for rural development, KRW 2,395,200, local education tax, KRW 1,916, KRW 37,84,200, and KRW 37,84,200.

C. Since then, through the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the Plaintiffs came to know that the total floor area, excluding the parking lot area of the instant building, exceeds KRW 31 square meters and the value exceeds KRW 90 million, respectively, and that the instant building constitutes a high-class house under Article 13(5)3 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 28(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24890, Dec. 4, 2013; hereinafter the same).

Accordingly, on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a revised return on the tax base of acquisition tax and special rural development tax by applying the base rate for heavy taxation applicable to high-class houses under the former Local Tax Act to the tax base of the instant building. On the same day, with respect to the instant building: (i) the principal tax on acquisition tax; and (ii) the principal tax on special rural development tax.

arrow