Whether the acquisition tax rate under Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act is applicable where a corporation acquired real estate and used it as a rooftop and disposed of within five years due to the aggravation of financial standing.

In a case where a corporation acquires and owns real estate for bank loans, etc. in the past, which were used by a third person while using a private house, and uses it as a private house for more than two years, but if it disposes of a private house and uses it again within five years from its acquisition without any pressure on the situation of debts for loans, etc. due to the aggravation of management, it is reasonable to dispose of the real estate used for business purposes, and thus, it cannot be deemed as subject to heavy acquisition tax rate under Article 112-3 of the Local Tax

Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Welfare New Daily Co., Ltd.

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 9,913,410 and penalty tax of KRW 1,982,680 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. If Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 7 were added to the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff is a company for the purpose of issuing the public health and medical professional area, etc. which is a periodical, and the plaintiff calculated the tax amount of the land subject to the plaintiff's voluntary report under Article 12-1 of the Local Tax Act within 12 years from the non-party 1's 42-7 m2, the non-party 1's 42-7 m2, the non-party 111.4 m2, the non-party 1's 42-7 m2, the non-party 1's 85.12 m2, the non-party 1's 87.19 m2, the non-party 3's m2, the non-party 1's m2.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the tax disposition of this case is unlawful since he had justifiable grounds to sell and dispose of the above real estate, so the land of this case is not a non-business land within five years after the acquisition, but a non-business land.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the disposal of the above real estate becomes non-business land of the juristic person even if the juristic person acquired the above real estate and used it directly for its unique business within 5 years thereafter. In this case, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, 9-2, Gap evidence 10, 10, 11-2, Gap evidence 13-1, 13-2, Gap evidence 14-2, and witness testimony, the whole purport of the oral argument was shown, the plaintiff acquired the above real estate with the money borrowed from the Seoul Trust Bank, etc., and used it as its own house, and then sold it within 5 years thereafter, it cannot be said that it constitutes "non-business land" of the above Article 15-2 of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff's disposal of the above land constitutes "non-business land" of the above case, which cannot be viewed as "non-business land" of the above case, since the plaintiff's disposal of the above real estate becomes unlawful after the plaintiff's disposal of the above land within 19-year period.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation is legitimate since the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case was unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)