[법인세부과처분취소][집34(1)특,214;공1986.3.1.(771),390]
In cases where a purchaser under Article 3-3 (20) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981) fails to construct a building due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, the collection of additional tax under paragraph (22) of the same Article shall apply.
In cases where income tax on capital gains is reduced pursuant to Article 3-3 (20) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981), the period prescribed by Article 3-3 (21) of the same Act and Article 2-8 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10670 of Dec. 31, 1981) shall, in other words, be the period prescribed by Article 3-3 (21) of the same Act and Article 2-8 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10670 of Dec. 31, 1981).
Articles 3-3(20), 3-3(21), and 3-3(2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981); Articles 2-8(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10670 of Dec. 31, 1981)
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others
Head of Dong Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1106 delivered on June 26, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In a case where income tax on capital gains is reduced pursuant to Article 3-3 (20) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981), the purchaser may not collect from the purchaser the amount equivalent to the amount of tax reduced pursuant to Article 3-3 (2) of the same Act as additional tax if it is impossible to collect from the purchaser the amount of tax reduced pursuant to Article 3-3 (2) of the same Act, which is the period prescribed by Article 3-3 (21) of the same Act and Article 2-8 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10670 of Dec. 31, 1981).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land was not constructed by the plaintiff due to the purchase of the land in this case and the public notice of the determination of urban planning facilities and the public notice of the cadastral approval, and recognized the fact that the land was not constructed by the plaintiff as a children's park site, and it constitutes a case where the plaintiff was unable to complete the construction of the building in this case within 2 years from the purchase date of the land due to the inevitable cause not attributable to the plaintiff, and in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified (However, although the designation of the above park site and the determination of urban planning facilities were publicly notified and publicly notified by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the decision of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment because it was caused by mistake and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment since it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it was just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)