beta
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. The Plaintiff, a special purpose company established pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on September 15, 2010, acquired securitization assets in KRW 26.6 billion, including loan claims secured by a building A, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the asset holder on October 14, 2010.
B. In order to recover the above loan claims, the Plaintiff directly participated in the auction procedure of the instant real estate and won the instant real estate at a successful bid on or around October 4, 201, and paid in full the sales price on October 4, 201.
C. On October 13, 201, the Plaintiff reported the acquisition tax of KRW 8,400,000, the local education tax of KRW 840,000, the special rural development tax of KRW 420,000, calculated by reducing and exempting the tax amount of KRW 50/10 with respect to the instant real estate as the tax base of KRW 420,00,000, and paid the acquisition tax and local education tax.
On July 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the acquisition of the instant real estate was not subject to acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; (b) was amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; (c) was not subject to acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter “new Act”); and (d) imposed acquisition tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the said real estate is not subject to acquisition tax reduction or exemption under Article 120(1)9 of the former Act (including penalty tax).
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 1; Eul evidence 1; Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and 5; the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Article 120(1)9 of the new Act on the Claim for Reduction and Exemption of Acquisition Tax pursuant to the interpretation of Article 120(1)9 of the Plaintiff’s Claim No. 1, does not apply to directly succeeding or acquiring real estate from an originator or a special purpose company, but claims secured by the originator as real estate.