Article 79-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In full view of the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 3-1 through 4, evidence No. 4-9, and evidence No. 1 to 3, evidence No. 1-1 and evidence No. 2, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A. The plaintiff Kim Jong-hee was the wife of the Nam-sik, the plaintiff Kim Jong-hee, and the plaintiff Nam-hee were the children of the Nam-sik. The Nam-sik owned the 1,2,507 square meters from September 28, 1983 in the order of 1983, 1387, and 4,507 square meters from September 30, 1983 (hereinafter the "4 real estate of this case"), and on November 19, 2004, the plaintiff Kim Jong-hee had the 124-O, the 407 square meters of the 124-O, the 107 square meters of the 127-O, the 124-O, the 307 square meters of the 10-O, the 123-O, the 123-O, the 123-O, the 404 square meters of the gift tax of this case, respectively, to the defendant.

B. On March 20, 2005, the Nam-sik died, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the property of Nam-sik, and the Plaintiffs also included the value of the instant real estate donated pursuant to Article 13(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act in the taxable amount of inheritance taxes and voluntarily reported and paid the inheritance tax by the method of excluding the amount of gift tax already paid, after calculating the inheritance tax amount.

C. On February 26, 2004, the Japanese ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ District where the instant real estate is located was designated as an area (hereinafter referred to as an speculation area) under the provisions of Article 96(1)6-2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005) (the location of Article 103-2 of the Income Tax Act was changed later), and was designated and publicly announced as an area subject to housing site development in the area south 2 area under Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act on July 30, 2004. < Amended by Act No. 7216, Aug. 23, 2006>

D. On December 11, 2006 and December 18, 2006, the plaintiffs transferred the real estate of this case to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the implementer of the housing site development project in the Jinsung-nam 2 district under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

E. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiffs deemed that the transfer value and acquisition value of the instant real estate in accordance with the provisions of Article 85 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (the special provisions of this case) and Article 79-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as indicated in the attached Form constitutes cases where the transfer value and acquisition value can be calculated based on the standard market price, and calculated gains from transfer by using the transfer value and acquisition value as the standard market price, and accordingly, Plaintiff Kim Jong-hee as the transfer income tax, Plaintiff Kim Jong-hee as the transfer income tax, and Plaintiff Kim Jong-hee as the transfer income tax, and Plaintiff Nam-hee reported and paid KRW 86,636,898, and 66,345,050 respectively

F. However, on May 11, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of transferring the real estate acquired through the donation on November 19, 2004, transferred the real estate, the acquisition value should be calculated by applying the market price at the time of donation, the transfer value, and the actual transaction price at the time of transfer, respectively, to the Plaintiff Kim Jong-hee, which is the amount equivalent to the difference between the transfer income tax amount calculated by such method and the amount already returned and paid by the Plaintiffs, KRW 169,385,280 for the Plaintiff Nam-hee, and KRW 148,85,440 for the Plaintiff Nam-hee, and KRW 148,85,40 for the Plaintiff Nam-hee, which is the amount corresponding to the difference between the transfer income tax amount calculated by such method and the amount already returned and paid by the Plaintiffs.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs received the real estate in this case for the purpose of distributing the property regardless of speculation from the South ○, and transferred it to the Korea Land Corporation, the implementer of the housing site development project, along with other five lots of land inherited, and paid transfer gains tax by calculating transfer margin based on the standard market price pursuant to the Special Cases of this case. The plaintiffs asserted that in applying the special cases of this case, the above act of donation cannot be deemed acquisition in the application of the special cases of this case, since the plaintiffs' above act of donation cannot be deemed acquisition, and it is reasonable to consider the date of acquisition of the real estate in South ○ as the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case, which is the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case, as the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case, the real estate in this case should be deemed to be the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case, and the transfer of the real estate in this case shall not be deemed to be the date of acquisition of the real estate in this case, regardless of the fact that the plaintiffs formally received the donation procedure for the real estate in this case.

B. Determination

Article 96 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer value of assets such as land under Article 94 (1) shall be based on the actual transaction value between the transferor and transferee at the time of transfer of the relevant assets (hereinafter “actual transaction value”). In addition, Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the same Act provides that the transfer value shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value if the transfer value is calculated based on the actual transaction value as above.

On the other hand, the special provisions of this case provide that "where a resident acquires real estate in the designated area under Article 104-2 (1) of the Income Tax Act within one of the following subparagraphs (referring to the date of public announcement by the head of the relevant administrative agency in the Official Gazette or the official bulletin, and where the date of public announcement is within 2 years retroactively from the date of public announcement, referring to the date of designation of the designated area where the date of public announcement arrives after the designation of the designated area under Article 104-2 (1) of the Income Tax Act, referring to the date of designation of the designated area) before December 31, 2006 under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor or other Acts (including the case of expropriation; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article), the transfer of real estate within the designated area under Article 104-2 (1) of the Income Tax Act may be based on the standard market price, and in applying Article 97 (1) 1 (a) of the same Act, the date of acquisition of real estate by a resident can be included in attached Article 27

Under the interpretation of the special provisions of this case, the standard market price applicable to the above provision is the date of designation of the planned housing site development area, the date of two years retroactively from the date of the public announcement of the project approval, the date of the designation of the planned housing site development area, and the date of the designation as the speculative area. According to the above facts, the date of designation of the planned housing site development area is July 30, 2004, and the date of two years retroactively from the public announcement of the project approval is August 23, 2004, and the date of designation as the speculative area is February 26, 2004. Therefore, since the date of the above three days is the highest on February 26, 2004, the base date of the standard engineer applicable to the transfer of the real estate in this case is the date of the above three days.

On the other hand, according to the above facts, the defendant's Nam-sik acquired the real estate of this case on September 28, 1983 and September 30, 1983, which is the above reference date, before February 26, 2004, and since the real estate of this case was transferred to the Korea Land Corporation on December 11, 2006 and December 18, 2006, before December 31, 2006, the plaintiffs would have to pay only the transfer income tax calculated on the basis of the standard market price in relation to the transfer of the real estate of this case without the above transfer registration under the plaintiffs' name.

However, the facts that the plaintiffs received a donation from South ○ on or after February 26, 2004, which was the above reference date, are recognized as above, and there is no exception provision that the acquisition of the gift for the same reason as the plaintiffs is not regarded as acquisition, because the special provision of this case is "before the date stipulated in any of the following subparagraphs". The interpretation of the Acts on taxes and charges is interpreted as a requirement for imposition or exemption, and it is not allowed to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable reasons, barring special circumstances. Thus, even if the acquisition of the gift from the plaintiffs was made under the circumstance of such assertion, it is difficult to interpret that the transfer price of the real estate should be excluded from the acquisition stipulated in the special provision of this case, unlike the law, by considering that the acquisition price of the real estate should be deducted from the value of the inherited property, and that the provision of Article 13(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not exclude the acquisition price of the real estate from the transfer price of the real estate in this case by adding the following amounts to the property value pursuant to Article 10.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the revocation of legitimate disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.