Land subject to general aggregate because it cannot be deemed land or farmland being constructed as of the tax base date, shall be deemed land subject to general aggregate.

Since construction permission cannot be deemed to have been actually used for farming because it does not correspond to land under construction due to cancellation of construction permission, it does not constitute land subject to general aggregate taxation.

2014Guhap145 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax

○ ○

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

September 24, 2014

October 22, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 46,243,412 out of KRW 66,79,500 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 is revoked (the “20 November 20, 2012” stated in the instant complaint refers to the clerical error in the “6,79,500 won”.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 14, 201, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m25 m2,975 m2,000 m25 m2,975 m2,00 m2,000,000 as sales and purchase of 25-6 m25 m2,000 m2.

B. On June 12, 2012, the head of ○○○○○-si imposed property tax on the land of 12 lots, including 25 square meters of the said land and 25-6 land of ○○-dong and 25-6, subject to general aggregate taxation. The Defendant notified the details of land subject to general aggregate taxation held by the Plaintiff as of June 1, 2012 as indicated below.

List of votes

(unit: Building area, 00 won)

Location

Land category (current Status)

Amount of taxation

officially announced value

Value of the collateral security;

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 25

Site

2,975

5,712,000

5,070,000

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 25-6

Site

807 663

499,902

2,825,000

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 452-9

Answer

98

1,397,900

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 452-19

Answer

244

341,600

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 452-20

Answer

33

46,200

Gyeonggi ○○-si ○○○-dong 86-15

Site

71

85,910

○ ○○○ ○○, Gyeongnam Doz. 230

Forest land

13,190

2,572

○ ○○ ○○ ○○○ ○○ Dogsan 85-1

Forest land

54,044

14,429

○○○ ○○○○, Gyeongnam Doz. 85-5

Forest land

593

230

○ ○○○ ○○○○ 729

Forest land

205

237

○ ○○○ ○○○○ 748

Forest land

645

34

○ ○○ ○○○ ○○○○ 80

Forest land

45,025

12,426

Total

18,686

8,113,740

C. On November 16, 2012, the Defendant, upon receipt of the foregoing notification, determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 66,79,500 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2012 and KRW 13,359,900 of the special rural development tax for the rural development tax (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed a tax appeal on June 19, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○-dong 25 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 25-6 square meters of 807 square meters of the same 25-6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) were not subject to general aggregate taxation, and the said appeal was dismissed on October 7, 2013 by the Tax Tribunal on the ground that the said disposition was not subject to general aggregate taxation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, 14, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each land of this case is not subject to general aggregate taxation as follows, and thus the disposition of this case is imposed.

The imposition of KRW 46,243,412 of the difference between the legitimate amount of taxation shall be revoked.

① The Plaintiff acquired the instant land No. 1 and constructed a building on the ground.

In order to develop a building complex with ○○○-dong 25-6 land and 25-6 land, the waterworks construction was executed as of December 14, 201, and the construction report was submitted on May 31, 201 in accordance with the initial construction permission, and thereafter, the construction report was submitted on May 31, 2012, and the business was conducted after obtaining a new construction permission by modifying the details of the business thereafter, and therefore, it is unreasonable to view the land No. 1 as land annexed to a building under construction and

② As of June 1, 2012, as of June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land No. 2, and one year has not elapsed since its acquisition.

C. From the year 2012, since the Plaintiff did not cultivate a scam in the land No. 2 in this case, it is unreasonable to impose a general aggregate taxation on the land No. 2 in this case by deeming the land No. 2 as a site.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the land No. 1 of this case

Article 11 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that comprehensive real estate holding tax on land shall be separately combined with general aggregate taxation subject to Article 106 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 2 of the same Act.

Article 106 of the Local Tax Act provides that a building subject to taxation shall be divided into aggregate taxation, aggregate taxation, separate taxation, and separate taxation, and Article 101 and Article 103 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24425, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act") stipulate land annexed to a building under construction (excluding a building, the construction of which has been suspended for six months or more without justifiable grounds as of the base date for taxation) as separate taxation.

On April 5, 2010, the Plaintiff obtained a new building permit (2010- new building permit-465) on the ground of the instant land on September 14, 2011 with respect to whether the instant land constitutes land annexed to a building under construction subject to separate taxation. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and its ground buildings on September 14, 201, and demolished the existing ground buildings on October 4, 201; the Plaintiff obtained approval of water supply construction works on the instant land on December 31, 201; the Plaintiff filed a new report on the commencement of construction works on May 31, 201 with the ○○○○ Office on April 201; Nonparty 2, 2010, on the other hand, obtained approval of the construction permit on the instant land on April 25, 2010, and Nonparty 2, 204-1427-14, 2014m26.

However, the following circumstances, i.e., ① public officials in charge of the ○○○ Office conducted a business trip investigation on the land of this case on June 12, 2012 for the investigation into the current status of property tax in 2012, ② in the above business trip investigation, the land of this case was part of cement construction area, but the construction is still confirmed as still, ③ under Article 11(1) and (7)1 of the Building Act, the permitting authority should cancel the permission where the person who obtained the building permit fails to commence construction within one year from the date of obtaining the permission without justifiable grounds. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to file a report on the commencement of construction within one year from the date of permission, and that there was no fact that construction work commenced, ④ the construction of this case’s land of this case on June 15, 2012 was partially revoked with the construction permission of this case on the land of this case on the ground that the construction work was partially revoked with the construction permission of this case on the ground that it did not constitute a new construction permission of this case on the ground of this case’s.

2) As to the second land of this case

Article 106 (1) 3 (a) of the Local Tax Act, Article 102 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

The title is taxable as a whole, answer, and orchard (hereinafter referred to as "farmland") in a green area among urban areas.

As of the base date, the farmland owned by individuals who are actually used for farming is defined as objects of general aggregate taxation not subject to general aggregate taxation.

As to whether the land No. 2 constitutes farmland actually used for farming, the following circumstances can be comprehensively seen, namely, (i) Nonparty 2 obtained permission to construct detached houses on the land outside 25-6, 2010 and (ii) was maintained as of June 1, 2012, which is the tax base date; and (ii) public officials in charge of 00-6, 25-6, 207 square meters on June 12, 2012, conducted a business trip on the land of this case for 200-6, 2007 square meters for the purpose of the investigation of the property tax of 200-6,000 square meters on the land of this case; and (iii) public officials in charge of 00-dong 25-6,000 square meters on the land of this case were found to have not been used for farming production or for 244-6,000 square meters on the land of this case; and (iv) public officials in charge of 200-dong 26,014, supra.

3. Conclusion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.