logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.12.16 2014구단1144
지방세부과처분취소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 4, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired C department store No. 701 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Kucheon-gu, Kucheon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the property tax on the instant real estate.

B. On July 24, 2013, the compulsory auction commenced on the instant real estate as Incheon District Court Branch DD on July 24, 2013, and on August 5, 2013, the instant real estate was seized on August 5, 2013 in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-si.

Since then, on August 28, 2014, a distribution schedule was prepared in order to distribute 3,646,970 won as a person who has the right to deliver (the pertinent tax) to Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-si.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, around May 13, 2014, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay local tax in arrears amounting to KRW 4,674,250, and thereafter, there was a disposition imposing property tax (building) KRW 531,390 on July 10, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 2-4

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that since it is difficult for the plaintiff to properly operate the business due to the illegal acts of the management body, there was no profit, the defendant should revoke the disposition imposing the property tax of KRW 3,646,970, which was distributed at the auction procedure and return the above money to the plaintiff.

B. Regarding the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, the litigation for revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the disposition (see Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 9-1, No. 3, No. 4 of the evidence No. 9-1, No. 3, and No. 4 of the instant real estate, the notice of property tax on July 15, 2013 concerning the instant real estate was received by the Plaintiff himself/herself at his/her domicile on July 15, 2013, and each time the notice of property tax or demand notice was served on each of the relevant areas. The instant lawsuit is filed on July 9, 2014 after the lapse of 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff

arrow