The mere fact that it is actually used as an attached parking lot other than an attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act shall not be deemed subject to separate aggregate taxation.

Since land within the standard area for installing annexed parking lots under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act is interpreted to the effect that land within the standard area for installing annexed parking lots is classified as a separate aggregate taxable object, part of the instant land that is actually being used for an annexed parking lot rather than an annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act shall not be

2016Guhap52729 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, etc.

AA Industry Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

October 14, 2016

November 11, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The portion exceeding KRW 000,000,000 among the imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 200,000,000 by the Defendant on November 16, 2014 and the imposition of KRW 00,000,000 among the imposition of KRW 00,000 for special rural development tax, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on November 16, 2014.

Each excess portion shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 1, 1971 to February 1, 1971, the Plaintiff owned the building of 2nd underground and 19 floors above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and run real estate leasing business.

B. The head of ○○○○○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “head of ○○○○-gu”) deemed the Plaintiff’s use as a parking lot in the vicinity of the instant building as a general aggregate taxable object, and imposed property tax on the Plaintiff for the year 2014 on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff’s use as a parking lot was 10,000,000 and KRW 00,000,000 for a comprehensive real estate tax for the year 2014, on November 16, 2014, deeming the entire land as a general aggregate taxable object, such as the head of ○○-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2015 on January 27, 2015, but was dismissed on November 5, 2015.

D. On May 3, 2016, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the head of ○○○ classified the entire land of this case as a general aggregate taxable object on the premise that there was no ground settlement on the entire land of this case as at the beginning of 2016, which was after the filing of the instant lawsuit, but in fact, on the ground that the steel-frame assembly parking lot is installed on some of the instant land, and the floor area on which such facilities are installed falls under a separate aggregate taxable object, not a general aggregate taxable object.

E. For the same purpose as the determination of refund of the head of ○○○○○○○, Defendant also deemed that the floor area of 470.33 square meters in which a steel-frame assembly parking lot is installed, among the entire land of this case, is subject to separate aggregate taxation, and accordingly, Defendant also corrected ex officio the amount of KRW 00,000,000 among the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 200,000,000 and the special rural development tax for 00,000,000 among the total real estate holding tax for 20,000,000 for 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 22, 25 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), fact-finding with the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant building was constructed before the Parking Lot Act enters into force, and there is no parking space in the building and site. Accordingly, from around 1976, the Plaintiff purchased approximately 40 meters away from the instant building from around 1976 and used it as a parking lot for the instant building until now.

Article 101(3)11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "land within the standard area for the installation of annexed parking lots under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act" shall be subject to separate aggregate taxation, and the area of the entire land of this case shall be smaller than the standard area for the installation of annexed parking lots under the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act. Therefore, the entire land of this case constitutes not only the floor area where a steel-frame assembly parking lot is installed but also a separate aggregate taxable object. Thus, the disposition of this case which deemed that the whole land of this case is subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation is unlawful (including comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for other land owned by the Plaintiff, other than the entire land of this case, while the disposition of this case includes comprehensive real estate tax and special rural development tax for some land of this case).

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that when imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax on land, land subject to general aggregate taxation under Article 106(1)1 of the Local Tax Act and land subject to special aggregate taxation under Article 106(1)2 of the Local Tax Act shall be imposed separately. Article 106(1)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13636, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter “Local Tax Act”) provides that “land subject to special aggregate taxation” shall be “land, other than land subject to special aggregate taxation or separate aggregate taxation among land owned by a taxpayer as of the base date of taxation.” Article 106(1)2 of the Local Tax Act provides that “land subject to special aggregate taxation” shall be attached to a building prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as land owned by a taxpayer as of the base date of taxation, (i) land (a) land for employment, land for bonded warehouse and research, land for testing and inspection, or land prescribed by Presidential Decree as necessary for the use of such land.

In addition, Article 101 (3) 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions of this case") provides that "the land within the standard area for the installation of annexed parking lots under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act (excluding annexed parking lots within land under Article 106 (1) 3 (c) of the Act) among the land prescribed by Presidential Decree under Article 106 (1) 2 (b) of the Act: Provided, That in the case of annexed parking lots of facilities falling under specialized resort business, general resort business and amusement facility business under Article 2 (1) 3 (a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Tourism Promotion Act, which are installed as a result of the deliberation of traffic impact assessment under Article 15 and Article 17 of the Urban Traffic Improvement Promotion Act, it refers to the land for parking lot within the scope prescribed

2) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds.

However, in cases where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through the interpretation between laws and regulations, it is permissible to make a combined interpretation that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, etc. to the extent that it does not undermine the legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13088, May 16, 2014). Moreover, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that are clearly considered as preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction and exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du736, Oct. 25, 2007).

3) We examine this case in accordance with the above legal doctrine. Although the text of the main text of the provision of this case is only "land within the standard area for the installation of annexed parking lots under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act", it is interpreted to the purport that the above provision is classified as an attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, which is within the standard area for the installation of annexed parking lots, and thus, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, some land of this case, which is actually being used for an annexed parking lot rather than an attached parking lot under

① Article 106(1)2(b) of the Local Tax Act provides that one of the requirements for the land subject to separate aggregate taxation under Article 106(1)2(b) of the Local Tax Act, which is the mother corporation of the instant provision, is “land utilized for business or economic activities by installing facilities, etc. necessary for the use of the relevant land.” As such, in order to constitute a land subject to separate aggregate taxation under the instant provision, there should be a specific facility capable of calculating the standard area for

② Since the provisions governing the mandatory installation of annexed parking lots to a building within a certain scope were established on April 17, 1979, Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act and Article 22-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 3165 of April 17, 1979), the instant provisions were introduced through the amendment of Article 131-2(3)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act to reduce local tax burden if land is owned in order to secure an annexed parking lot subject to statutory enforcement.

③ According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 through 16, the entire land of this case was reported as an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act around 1986, and the establishment of an annexed parking lot on the entire land of this case around April 2015 is recognized as having been recorded in the building ledger of this case and the land category of the entire land of this case has been changed to a parking lot. An annexed parking lot established under the Building Act or the Parking Lot Act shall be recorded in the building ledger (see attached Form 1) and [Attachment 3]. In addition, a annexed parking lot of a building cannot be used for any purpose other than a parking lot in principle pursuant to Article 19-4 of the Parking Lot Act, and if it is used for any other purpose, it shall be ordered to restore the building to its original state, and if it is not complied with the order, it shall be subject to restrictions in public law, such as various administrative measures taken as the building violating the Building Act. Considering this, the entire land of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, cannot be seen as being subject to the relevant parking Lot Act.

④ According to the evidence evidence Nos. 15 and 16, among the entire land of this case, it appears that 23 square meters of the entire land of this case were recorded in the building ledger of this case as an attached parking lot for the building of this case even before 2015. However, since the Defendant revised the tax amount by deeming the part used as the steel-frame assembly parking lot among the entire land of this case as a separate aggregate taxable object, the Defendant did not have any reason to regard it as a separate aggregate taxable object

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost.

It is so decided as per sentence.