logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 고급오락장으로 취득세 등을 중과세한 처분이 적법한 지 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2003-06-05 | 2003-0152 | 지방
[Case Number]

2003-0152 (2003.06.05)

[Items]

acquisition

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

The claimant's assertion that it is not a high-class recreation center is not acceptable, and therefore the disposition agency considers the building and its appurtenant land as a high-class recreation center and the disposition of heavy taxation of acquisition tax, etc. is legitimate.

[Related Acts]

Article 112 of the Local Tax Act / The scope of and standards for application for the head of the Gu, etc. under Article 84-3 of the Local Tax Act

【Disposition】

The claimant's request for review shall be dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of the original disposition;

On September 19, 2002, the disposition agency newly built a 375.86 square meters of a building on the 3rd floor above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the 208 square meters of a site ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, which was acquired on February 15, 2002, and the lessee uses the 2nd floor above ground as an entertainment drinking place. Since the lessee uses the 134.28 square meters of a building on the 2nd floor above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) as an entertainment drinking place, the agency made a notification of the acquisition value (21,649,814 won) calculated by dividing the size of the instant building and its appurtenant land from the total acquisition value of the instant real estate in proportion to the size of the instant building and its appurtenant land as the tax base (amended by Act No. 6838, Dec. 30, 202; hereinafter the same shall apply) by applying the tax rate under Article 1112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act.

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

On October 16, 2002, the claimant leased the building of this case to the ○○○○○, and the lessee imposed heavy acquisition tax on December 10, 2002 on the basis of five guest rooms and paper register when the public official in charge of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the disposition of the case on December 10, 2002, when the tenant was under the permission of the entertainment drinking house business on November 15, 2002 and he was under the direction of the local association, but the applicant removes part of the guest room and installed an emergency passage, and uses it as a liquor warehouse. In addition, since the employee registered on the list of the employees did not understand the guidance of the local association of the food-based society and did not arbitrarily state the dong (4 persons other than the ○○○) and the ○○○ and the ○○○ residential residents (the ○○○) of the building of this case.

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

The dispute over the request for review of this case is whether a disposition of heavy taxation of acquisition tax, etc. is legitimate or not.

First of all, the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that the acquisition tax rate for acquiring a high-class recreation center, etc. shall be 500/100 of the tax rate under paragraph (1). The term "high-class recreation center" under Article 112(2) main sentence of the former Local Tax Act provides that buildings used for gambling establishments, amusement bar establishments, special bathing rooms, and other similar purposes, and land attached thereto as determined by the Presidential Decree. The main sentence of Article 84-3(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 84-3(3)5 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that entertainment bar business under the Food Sanitation Act, which raises amusement by amusement, shall be limited to a high-class recreation center where the area of guest rooms, which is semi-permanently partitioned, is 50/100 of the area of the place of business, and the area of the place of business exceeds 100 square meters.

Next, the claimant leased the instant building that was newly built on September 19, 2002 to ○○○ on October 16, 2002, and the lessee used it for a place of business after obtaining an entertainment drinking club business license on November 15, 2002. As a result of a field investigation conducted on December 10, 2002 by a public official in charge of the disposition agency conducted on December 10, 2002, the area of the place of business is 137.57 square meters, the number of guest rooms is 5 square meters, and the fact that there are 3 guests is three.

Therefore, the claimant asserts that the building of this case is not a high-class recreation center since the number of guest rooms was permitted to operate an entertainment tavern business, and the building of this case is not a entertainment entertainment place. Thus, on November 15, 2002, before the tenant conducts an entertainment tavern business after obtaining permission to operate an entertainment tavern business on November 15, 2002, the claimant is confirmed to have already been issued a certificate of completion of the fire-fighting and fire-fighting facilities and fire-fighting facilities installed in conformity with the relevant regulations, such as installation of two emergency tools as a result of the inspection of the establishment of an entertainment tavern from the ○○○○ City Fire-Fighting Center on November 4, 2002. The tenant's "○○○ office-class store" means the two stories of the building of this case as its trade name, and it is not a 30-class entertainment facility or a 20-class entertainment center's land attached to the 20-class entertainment center.

Therefore, since the claimant's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered in accordance with Article 77 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

July 28, 2003

Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice;

arrow