beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.09.13 2013구단9154

양도소득세경정거부처분취소

Text

1. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on May 7, 2012 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred to the Korea National Housing Corporation the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground-based 1st and multi-household 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant newly-built house”). The instant newly-built house was newly built on September 30, 1996 after removing on March 27, 1996 the instant newly-built house, which was acquired and owned by the Plaintiff before January 1, 1985, CHousing 8rd Housing Complex 68 square meters on the instant land, which was owned by the Plaintiff, 66.12 square meters on the first floor, 6.12 square meters on the first floor, 6.12 square meters on the second floor, and 66.12 square meters on the second floor (hereinafter “former house”).

B. On May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 278,514,070 capital gains tax (at least 10 years) by applying Article 95(2) [Attachment 1] of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the special long-term holding deduction rate of KRW 30/100 (at least 10 years), which is stipulated in [Attachment 1] (hereinafter referred to as “ Dispute Table 1), and paid the special long-term holding deduction of KRW 278,514,070 to non-residents on one house per household on March 5, 2012 (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du21147, Jul. 14, 201) to which the provisions on special long-term holding deduction of KRW 20 [Attachment 2] of the Income Tax Act, and the period for which the transfer income tax was already paid for less than 10 years, 10/107 years or more than 107 years.

C. On May 7, 2012, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the provision on special deduction for long-term possession of one house for one household cannot be applied to a nonresident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 30, 2012, and the Board of Audit and Inspection prescribed that even in the case of a nonresident, the instant newly-built house should be taxed in the same manner as that of a resident.