1. The term "the creation of a lawsuit" means

Head of Busan Metropolitan City North Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 9, 1984

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 9,348,81, registration tax of KRW 13,795,748, and KRW 2,755,149 against the Plaintiff on June 15, 1982, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) First, we examine the main defense.

The plaintiff's attorney filed a request for review on September 20 of the same year after the lapse of 30 days from August 16, 1982 after receiving a notice of rejection of the request for re-audit of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case. Thus, the above request for review of this case is illegal and thus, the lawsuit of this case must be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit filed without lawful pre-trial procedure. Thus, according to the above statements, Gap evidence 1, 7, Eul evidence 6-1, and Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff's request for re-audit of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case from the Busan City Mayor on August 16, 1982, and the plaintiff was notified of rejection of the request for re-audit of the acquisition tax, etc. of this case by the Busan City Mayor on September 16, 1982, and the plaintiff's request for review of this case's request for review against the Minister of Home Affairs on September 7, 1999.

(2) As to the following merits:

6. Acquisition tax rate of 1.6. 15. The defendant purchased the above 9,348,81, 13,748, and imposed tax on the defense industry 2,75,149 against the plaintiff's 14. 7. 4. 7. 1. The defendant's acquisition tax and the registration tax rate of 1. 7. 4, 1. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1, 6-14, 1-1, 3 and 9. 4, respectively, for the above 6. 1, 3 and 4. 1, 196, 3 and 4. 1, 106, 14 and 5. 1, 197, 207, 3 and 4. 7, 196, 3 and 94, respectively, to the plaintiff's previous 6. 4, 197

According to the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 acquired all facilities such as the above factory site, the building and the machinery and equipment from the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 corporation. The plaintiff acquired the above factory site, the building and the machinery and equipment within the 7th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 acquired the above factory's new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction of 10th and new construction of new construction of new construction of new construction

Therefore, the plaintiff's acquisition of the factory of this case and the registration of transfer of ownership thereon shall be deemed to constitute acquisition for the new construction (in the case of the acquisition of a factory located in the Busan Northern-dong 364-4, the case of the acquisition of a factory located in the same 364-4, the case of the acquisition of a factory located in the same 364-14 of the same 364) or extension (in the case of the acquisition of a factory located in the same 364-14 of the same 364), and subsequent real estate registration. Therefore, the defendant's taxation of this case is legitimate.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the Defendant’s taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

may 22, 1984

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission]