Gwangju District Court 2010Guu4247 (No. 12, 2011)

early 2009 Mine3181 (Law No. 10, 2010)

The disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate because the business site of the LPG charging is the non-business land.

Since the business site of LPG shocks is not prescribed as land excluded from the non-business land, and the facilities alleged as omitted from the special aggregate taxation are already reflected in the area of the special aggregate taxation at the time of the imposition of property tax, it is legitimate to regard the remaining part as land for non-business as land subject to general aggregate taxation.

Scope of other land used for the business under Article 168-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu760 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Guhap4247 Decided May 12, 2011

December 8, 2011

January 12, 2012

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of 26,852,752, and 752 imposed on the Plaintiff on June 8, 2009 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. The judgment of this Court

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

In this case, the reasoning for this court is as follows: ① the business site of the LPG charging station like the disputed land is not stipulated as one of the non-business land; ② the business site of the pertinent LPG charging station like the instant land is not defined as one of the land excluded from the non-business land; ② the business site of the pertinent LPG charging station such as the instant land is not defined as one of the land excluded from the non-business land; ② the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part; and ③ the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and this is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Additional determination matters [Plaintiff's assertion]

Since the Defendant calculated the land of this case 2, 30 square meters, 1, 503 square meters [23.4 square meters + 79.9 square meters of a 1st floor of a building + 23.4 square meters of a 1st floor + 88 square meters of a 23.4 square meters of a building + 9.2 square meters of a building with 327 square meters of land for non-business (the key land in this case = 2,30-1,500 square meters). However, according to the building ledger (A), the above 3.6 square meters of land for non-business, and 9.2 square meters of land for non-business under Article 182(1)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7972, Sep. 1, 206) + 94 square meters of land for non-business use + 94 square meters of land for non-business use under Article 182-137(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 196464).

[Judgment]

According to evidence (A. 2) and evidence 2: (a) the Plaintiff’s disposal of one-story area of one-half square meter and one-half square meter of one-half square meter of two-five square meters; (b) the Plaintiff, at the time of imposing property tax on the transferred land of this case for 205 and 206; (c) the Plaintiff’s disposal of 42 square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of five-five square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five (one-five square meters of five-five square meters of five-five square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of five-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-five square meters of two-one square meters of two.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is justifiable. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as without merit.