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 Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B was built on September 17, 1994 with the construction permission granted on October 11, 1994, and was built on June 27, 1996, and the 10-household residential apartment houses, which had undergone a pre-use inspection conducted on June 27, 1996, with the total floor area of each 297.65 square meters at the time of new construction (exclusive use area, 257.65 square meters, and 40.04 square meters).
B. On July 6, 2006, the above B building was extended to the size of 26.232 square meters per Gu under permission for extension of an underground parking lot. Since the pertinent area constitutes a public area, the exclusive use area before and after the extension is not changed from the original 257.65 square meters, but the total area was increased to 323.922 square meters from the previous 297.65 square meters.
C. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the above B building 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from KRW 1,000,000,000. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 120,000,000, acquisition tax calculated by applying the high-class housing tax rate (12%) pursuant to Article 13(5) of the Local Tax Act, and the local education tax amounting to KRW 4,00,00,000, total of KRW 10,000,000.
On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for reduction or correction of the tax amount initially returned and paid and the tax amount calculated by applying the general tax rate under Article 11(1)7 (b) to the difference between the tax amount calculated by applying the general tax rate under Article 11(1)7 (b) and the acquisition tax amount of KRW 80,000,000 for special rural development tax, but the Defendant rejected it on October 24, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on November 7, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on March 27, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including all virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 14481, Dec. 31, 1994) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481, Dec. 31, 1994) of the Plaintiff’s assertion is provided for the purpose of guaranteeing the legal stability of taxpayers and protecting the taxpayer’s trust interests. Thus,