2016Guhap21543 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Property Tax, etc.

D. D. D. M. S.T.

The head of the Gu

October 25, 2016

November 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to the Plaintiff’s building listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “instant building”), each imposition of property tax of 114,960 won for July 9, 2015 (house) and local resource and facility tax of 7,820 won for local education tax of 10,070 won for July 9, 2015, and property tax of 114,960 won for September 9, 2015 (house) and imposition of property tax of 114,960 won for local resources, 7,820 won for local education tax of 10,070 won for local education tax, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building on August 10, 2010 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 14, 2010, as part of the site extension plan for the Buddhist History (Seoul-gu, Seogu, 520-3 located) affiliated inspectors.

B. As a result of a local business trip investigation conducted on June 25, 2015, the Defendant determined that the instant building as of June 1, 2015, which was the tax base date for property tax in 2015, was not directly used for religious purposes, and imposed property tax (housing) 114,960 won, local resource and facility tax 7,820 won, local education tax 10,070 won, and property tax (housing) 114,960 won, local resource and facility tax 7,820 won, local education tax 10,070 won, and 10,070 won, respectively, on July 2015, 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on October 5, 2015. However, on March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on March 28, 2016. The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) there was no dispute; (b) Gap’s 1, 2, and 5 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) Eul’s 1 through 3; and

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly uses the instant building for religious purposes, such as the source and place of the son’s wife, the gathering place of believers, etc. visiting the instant building for religious rites, the instant building constitutes subject to exemption of property tax, etc. pursuant to Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply). Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing property tax, etc. on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In around the end of 2005, the Plaintiff established a plan to expand the site of Tae Tae Tae-Sa, which covers the purchase, land category, change of use of a building, etc. of a site adjacent to a site of Tae Tae-Sa, Tae-Sa.

2) The instant building is a multi-family house with the third floor located in addition to the scarcitys, and the current status of the instant building on the general building ledger (A) of the instant building is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

3) According to the field photographs attached to the business tripbook prepared by the public official in charge of the defendant, each heading room of the building of this case is marked with signs such as 'Breging room', 'Breging room', 'Breging room', 'Breging room', and 'Breging room'. Within each heading room, TV, cooling house, freging room, freging room, etc. are provided, and there are other tanks, candles, and flags, etc. for the map.

4) According to the “all kinds of law and event details submitted by the Plaintiff,” the stins dispatched from the outside to various events held in July 2015 and August 201 and its execution officers were deemed to have been lodging in the instant building.

5) In addition to the instant building, the Plaintiff owns each ground building of 513,515,528 Sung-dong, Seogu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Defendant exempted property tax, etc. in consideration of the fact that each ground building of the same 513,528 units among these buildings was entered as a religious assembly site on the building ledger, and that the building is being used as a warehouse that keeps annual lights and fire supplies.

【Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence 3 and 4, video and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides that "property tax and local resource and facility tax under Article 146(2) of the Local Tax Act shall be exempted on real estate used directly by an organization for a religious or religious purpose as of the tax base date for the pertinent business: Provided, That where such property is used for profit-making business and a fee is charged and part of such property is not used directly for its original purpose, no exemption shall be granted on such property." Here, the term "whether a direct use is used for the pertinent business" should be objectively determined on the basis of its actual use, taking into account the relevant organization's business purpose and purpose of acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du20027, Jun. 11, 2009). If a non-profit entrepreneur provided a lodging to its members, staying in the lodging place is in a position of tracking the necessity of the non-profit entrepreneur's business activities, and if it is not directly used for the pertinent business purpose, it can be deemed that it is directly used for the pertinent business purpose.

2) In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to recognize that the building of this case was used for religious purposes on the ground that the building of this case was used on a regular basis in light of the following circumstances, i.e., the building of this case was used on a temporary basis by external v.S. visiting G.S., and its attendants. It is difficult to see that the building of this case was in a critical tracking position in the religious activities of G.S., and the provision of accommodation to them is not necessarily necessary for the Plaintiff’s business. ② The building of this case is located outside G.S. and its main purpose is in light of its facilities and conditions. It is difficult to recognize that some N.S. and N. were used on a temporary basis as a place or meeting of G.S., and ③ it is difficult to see that the building of this case was used on a permanent basis for religious purposes; ③ it is clearly considered that the provision of tax reduction or exemption requirements is a provision that directly accords with the principle of tax equity and tax exemption and exemption, considering whether it directly uses the building of this case’s business (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10).

Therefore, the instant building is a property tax, etc. under Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.

Since the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, 00

Judges Presiding Justice

Judges Excursion Ship Co.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.