[취득세부과처분취소][공1998.2.1.(51),435]
Whether this contract constitutes "the case where a contract is concluded after the public announcement date of the project approval under Article 109 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, etc., after promising to execute an acquisition contract for real estate substitution for the land to be expropriated before the public announcement date of the project approval (affirmative)
According to Articles 109(1) and 127-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), where a person who has obtained a project approval under the Land Expropriation Act, etc. acquires a substitute real estate within one year from the date of the project approval (limited to cases where a contract is concluded after the date of the project approval), the acquisition tax and registration tax for the acquisition shall not be imposed. Here, the term "cases where a contract is concluded after the project approval is publicly notified" refers to cases where a contract for the acquisition of a substitute real estate is concluded after the project approval is publicly notified. Thus, if a person promises to conclude a contract for the acquisition of a real estate before the project approval is publicly notified, it cannot be deemed that a real estate acquisition contract is itself concluded before the project approval is publicly notified, so this contract constitutes "cases where a contract is concluded after the project approval is publicly notified" under Article 109(1) of the former Local Tax Act.
Articles 109(1) and 127-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993)
Two Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sam-sung, Attorneys Im-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Suwon-si Head of Suwon-si (Attorney Jin-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu10845 delivered on November 14, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. According to Articles 109(1) and 127-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), where a person who has obtained a project approval who is entitled to expropriate land, etc. under the Land Expropriation Act, etc. acquires real estate in lieu of the acquisition (limited to the case of concluding a contract after the project approval is publicly notified) within one year from the date the project approval is publicly notified, the acquisition tax and registration tax for the acquisition shall not be imposed. The term "the case of concluding a contract after the project approval is publicly notified" refers to the case of concluding a contract to acquire real estate in lieu of the former one after the project approval is publicly notified. Thus, if a person promises to conclude a contract to acquire real estate in the future before the project approval is publicly notified, it cannot be deemed that a real estate acquisition
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a housing site supply agreement with the Suwon market on December 7, 1990, which is the date of the public announcement of the project approval in order to secure substitute land for the expropriated land in advance. However, at the time of the above agreement, the construction of housing site was not completed, and the size and the estimated supply value of the land to be supplied was determined by the confirmation survey without specifying the size and supply value of the land to be supplied, and the supply value was increased or decreased by the confirmation survey. The execution plan for the housing site development project was approved and the land to be supplied becomes final and conclusive, and the contract was concluded after obtaining the approval for the supply of the housing site. Accordingly, on December 30, 1991, the court below rejected the conclusion that the housing site development project was executed with the plaintiff et al. for the housing site development project at KRW 5B-43,921 square meters within the housing site development project district, and that the contract was concluded with the plaintiff 19,830,31,500 won instead of the above sale agreement.
2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)