logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.04.03 2013구합7705
재산세부과처분취소
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 Plaintiff is a school juristic person established for higher education, etc., and operates the Seoul Arts University located in Ansan-si, Seosan-si. The Plaintiff owned the land on a total of 15 pieces of land, including 4-3 and 94m2 in Masan-dong, Ansan-si, Seosan-si, and 4-4 and 6,626m2 in Masan-dong, Ansan-si, Dongsan-si, and 4-5 and 3,810m2 in east-5 and 324m24m2 in 19, and 529m2 in 2 preceding the same Dong (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. The Defendant reduced or exempted the property tax from 2008 to 2011 on the ground that each of the instant lands is real estate used directly for educational business. However, around September 11, 2012, the Defendant imposed property tax and local education tax on each of the instant lands from 2008 to 2011 on the Plaintiff on the ground that “The actual use of each of the instant lands constitutes forest land and land is not subject to reduction or exemption under Article 41(2) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act.”

C. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal. However, on May 27, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim to the effect that “if a natural forest is maintained as a green belt without installing facilities related to curriculum, in principle, it shall not be deemed as a property directly used for educational business of the school foundation.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion directly uses each of the lands of this case for educational business shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the acquisition of each of the lands of this case, the development plan for a campus, the location and actual use of each of the lands of this case, and the Plaintiff’s specific use plan for each of the lands

arrow