logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.28 2015구합68995
취득세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 16, 2009, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts, acquired the instant real estate from the KS Construction Co., Ltd. for the fourth floor of B B mobile 409 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and subsequently was exempted from acquisition tax, etc. pursuant to the main sentence of Article 7(2) of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of Do Taxes (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 4295, Dec. 26, 201; hereinafter “Ordinance”) on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes real estate for knowledge industry centers acquired by the first sale from the founders of knowledge industry centers for the purpose of running business or venture business under Article 28-5(1)1 and 2 of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereinafter “Industrial Cluster Act”).

B. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff leased and delivered the instant real estate to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). On October 20, 2014, the Defendant imposed local tax (including additional tax) on KRW 22,846,980 (including additional tax) with respect to the instant real estate on the ground that the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Nonparty Co., Ltd. and used it for other purposes within five years from the date of acquisition of the said real estate by leasing it to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on November 17, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on August 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 6, and 7 (including each number in case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is not only a shareholder who holds 60% shares at the same time as the representative director of the non-party company, but also the non-party company has been engaged in the business before.

arrow