Court: "Acquisition Cost of 2nd Lotte World Should Not Include Jamsil Station Construction Expenses"

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Songpa District Office has been ruled by the court to have unjustly included the construction costs of Jamsil Station in the acquisition price when calculating the acquisition tax for 'Second Lotte World' (Lotte World Tower and Lotte World Mall).

According to the court on the 18th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 4 (Presiding Judge Kim Jeongjung) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the first trial of the lawsuit filed by Lotte Corporation, Lotte Shopping, Hotel Lotte, and others against the Songpa District Office, seeking cancellation of the refusal to amend the acquisition tax, etc.

Previously, these companies demanded that Songpa District Office refund about 17.3 billion KRW of acquisition tax, claiming that the acquisition tax of approximately 109.7 billion KRW paid between 2014 and 2017 for the construction of Second Lotte World included the construction costs of Jamsil Station subway. The Songpa District Office refunded about 15.2 billion KRW but rejected the remainder.

During the trial, the companies argued that the construction costs of Jamsil Station were borne for public interest according to an agreement between Lotte and Songpa District and were not indirect costs included in the acquisition price. They also claimed that the taxation of public areas such as the Second Lotte World parking lot, calculated based on total floor area rather than the standard market value of each area, was unjust.

The first trial ruled in favor of the companies, determining that including all Jamsil Station construction costs in the acquisition price of Second Lotte World and the method of calculating the tax base for public areas subject to the acquisition tax surtax rate were incorrect. The court explained, "The construction costs of Jamsil Station were borne by the plaintiffs to achieve the public purpose of improving transportation convenience such as subway use."

However, the court ruled to "cancel the refusal to amend the claim" because it could not calculate the appropriate tax amount to be refunded to the companies by the Songpa District Office based solely on the materials submitted by both parties. The Songpa District Office has appealed the first trial ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.