Busan District Court 2014Guhap20248 ( October 02, 2014)

The requirements for "person who has registered his/her business under the Rental Housing Act" shall be that he/she has maintained his/her business under the Rental Housing Act and its registration effectively.

The meaning of "a person who has registered a rental business for the purpose of applying Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act" includes not only the business registration under the Rental Housing Act but also the effective maintenance of the rental business registration.

Article 3 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act excluding Cumulative Ownership

2014Nu22731 Revocation of the disposition of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax

KimA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap20248 Decided October 2, 2014

March 13, 2015

April 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of each comprehensive real estate tax and each special rural development tax (including additional tax per interest) on November 7, 2012, written in the column of "the details of the attached disposition" against the plaintiff, which the defendant made against the plaintiff on November 7, 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following judgments. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. In relation to the imposition of comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the year 2007, the Plaintiff’s business registration was maintained as of June 1, 2007, which was the tax base date, and the Plaintiff’s continuous lease of housing after the lapse of five (5) years. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the imposition of comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for the year 2007 is unlawful.

Therefore, if a person who registered as a rental business operator on June 1, 2007, as of the tax base date, leases a house continuously after the tax base date, and thereafter leases it for five or more years in total, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted the above premise that the house should be retroactively excluded from adding up rental housing as of June 1, 2007. However, according to Article 8(2)1 of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 8(2)1 of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the house constitutes a rental house only if the requirements of “the house shall be leased continuously for five or more years” as of the tax base date are met. Accordingly, the above assertion by the first-party Plaintiff on a different premise

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s duty payment notice was defective as it is not possible to decide whether to appeal the tax payment notice on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not know what is subject to taxation and how the tax base was calculated.

Therefore, Article 9(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that "where the head of a tax office intends to collect national taxes, he/she shall issue a tax notice stating the period of taxation, items of taxation, amount of taxes, grounds for calculation, deadline for payment and place of payment of national taxes to a taxpayer." Article 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 304, Dec. 14, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that "the tax notice under Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the National Tax Collection Act shall be in accordance with attached Form 10-2: Provided, That the notice related to the collection of comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be in accordance with attached Form 10-2, since Article 9(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11605, Jan. 1, 2013); the defendant cannot accept the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice prior to this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.