Suwon District Court 2009Guhap9537 ( November 09, 2011)

early 209 Heavy2016 (209.08)

Forest land required to be preserved in its original form in the membership golf course is legitimate;

(1) The laws and regulations based on the rejection disposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. on forest land preserved in its original form in a membership golf course do not violate the principle of no taxation without law and the prohibition of comprehensive delegation, and there is no ground to find that the constitutional equality principle and the freedom of occupation were infringed, and that the official land price was erroneously calculated.

Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2011Nu45391 Revocation of revocation of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc.

XX Construction Co., Ltd.

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap9537 Decided November 9, 2011

April 25, 2012

May 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition rejecting the correction of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on February 23, 2009 against the plaintiff was revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff concerning the claim for revocation of revocation of revocation of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2007, shall be revoked, and the defendant's disposition of refusal to correct comprehensive real estate holding tax for 207, which belongs to the plaintiff on February 23, 200

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: [The grounds for recognition] in the part [the last half of the judgment of the court] (the second part of the judgment of the court) added "each entry of the evidence A 1 through 5 (including the provisional number)", and 3-C. The part "the assertion that the officially announced value has been calculated erroneously" (the fourth to the fourth below from the fourth below 7th below of the judgment of the court of first instance) and the part "the determination on the argument that the publicly announced value has been calculated erroneously (the fourth to the tenth after the tenthth below of the judgment of the court of first instance)" (the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Plaintiff asserts that the provision of the Enforcement Decree of this case, which requires the imposition of heavy taxes on the forest land preserved in its original form, of membership golf course, is unconstitutional in essence, which infringes on taxpayers’ property rights. However, when imposing taxes, it is recognized that the imposition of taxes, such as property tax, imposed on itself, is justifiable under the Constitution. However, the basis, scope, or limitation of imposing taxes is merely problematic. Comprehensive real estate holding tax is not subject to collection of all real estate values within a short period of time in light of its tax rate, but is not subject to deduction of property taxes on the tax basis of comprehensive real estate holding tax. In full view of the fact that the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of this case regarding comprehensive real estate holding tax do not constitute an infringement on the essential substance of property rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Hun-Ba12, Nov. 12, 2008; 2007Hun-Ba718, 94, 2008Hun-Ba3, 62, 208Hun-Ga12, etc.).

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.