2. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The rejection disposition of each request for correction stated in the attached disposition made by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate on the grounds of the use of this case; (b) whether the plaintiffs' assertion, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and (c) whether the facts of recognition (the second to fourth to third) are legitimate. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article

2. Determination

A. Article 77 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8827 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Paragraph (1) provides that the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced on the income accrued from the transfer of land, etc. in a rearrangement zone under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") to the project operator on or before December 31, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "special taxation provision of this case").

Meanwhile, according to the Urban Improvement Act, an urban environment improvement project may be implemented by an association or a landowner comprised of landowners, etc., and a Mayor/head of a Gun may designate a landowner, etc. as a project implementer and have him/her implement a rearrangement project (Article 8(3) and (4)), where a project implementer intends to implement a rearrangement project, he/she shall submit the project implementation plan, etc. to the head of a Si/Gun and obtain authorization for the implementation (Article 28(1)), and where necessary to implement a rearrangement project, the project implementer may expropriate or use land, goods, or other rights (Article 38), and where necessary to implement a rearrangement project, the project implementer may expropriate or use land, goods, or other rights (Article 38), or a person who implements a rearrangement project without authorization for the implementation of the project

B. Where the instant special taxation provisions apply only to cases where real estate, etc. is transferred to the owner of land, etc., for which authorization for project implementation has been granted in advance in an urban environment rearrangement project implemented by the owner of land, etc., barring any special circumstance, such as being designated as a project implementer, and where the owner of land, etc. at the time of transfer did not obtain authorization for project implementation, the instant special taxation provisions do not apply even if authorization for project implementation was obtained later (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1408

(1) The project implementer under the Urban Improvement Act recognizes the right to expropriate real estate and even if both Do persons transfer real estate to the project implementer, the decision-making authority on the transfer value shall be granted.

The legislative intent of this case is to mitigate capital gains tax burden by reducing capital gains tax and to facilitate the implementation of the rearrangement project at the same time. However, in cases where the owner of land, etc. wishes to become the project implementer without obtaining an authorization for project implementation under Article 28 of the Urban Improvement Act, it is reasonable to specify the project implementer only when he/she has obtained an authorization for project implementation under Article 8(4) of the Urban Improvement Act, unless there are special circumstances, such as being designated as the project implementer, and it is difficult to specify the project implementer prior to the authorization for project implementation, and it is difficult to deem that the right to expropriate the project implementer is anticipated to be

(2) Even where real estate is transferred to an owner, such as land before obtaining authorization for project implementation, if the provisions of the special taxation of this case are applied, the requirements for reduction or exemption of the special taxation of this case may be unclear as of

(3) Article 28 of the Urban Improvement Act provides for procedures for filing an application for authorization for project implementation, in mind of the legislative purpose in order to continue a project implementation, and it is difficult to readily conclude the provision with the purport that a landowner, etc. is to appear as a project implementer even before the project implementer receives a project implementation authorization, in cases where a landowner, etc. implements a project.

C. On June 25, 2007, the plaintiffs transferred each of the instant shares to the non-party company as to each of the instant real estate listed in the separate real estate list, and the non-party company was authorized to implement the project only on May 22, 2009, when about two years have passed since then. The transfer made by the plaintiffs is not subject to the special taxation provisions of this case, and each of the instant dispositions is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.