[부동산투기억제세부과처분취소][공1980.9.15.(640),13039]
Whether the penalty paid to cancel the contract prior to the transfer act which is subject to taxation can be deducted from the transfer value.
The phrase “person who owns land before January 1, 1963” referred to in the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculation (hereinafter referred to as “the person who acquired ownership before the base date”) refers to a person who acquired ownership before the base date, including a person who acquired land ownership under the former Civil Act at the time of the base
Paragraph 3 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate
Central Industry Corporation
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu184 delivered on October 30, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.
The court below determined that the decision of the court below was unlawful on April 30, 1968 on the ground that the non-party did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the non-party did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on April 18, 1962 by distributing the land to the non-party and the non-party did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the non-party did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the non-party did not first win the above non-party's lawsuit against the above non-party to cancel the registration of ownership transfer, and that the non-party won the registration of the non-party's name was cancelled on April 30, 1968 on the ground that the non-party won the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff on November 6, 1968, and then the plaintiff confirmed that the registration of ownership transfer was completed to the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party's ownership transfer was revoked on the ground that the non-party did not constitute a special measure under the Addenda to the Real Estate Tax Act.
The term "person who owns land before January 1, 1963" in the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculative Measures means a person who acquired ownership prior to the relevant base date. In this case, since the plaintiff purchased the land of March 16, 1957 and paid the price on the same day, even if the plaintiff failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer at the time of the purchase, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case on the contract date in accordance with Article 176 of the former Civil Code, which was enforced at the time of the purchase, and the plaintiff is the legal owner of the land of this case at the time of January 1, 1963, which is the applicable date of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculative Measures. Thus, the plaintiff constitutes "the person who acquired ownership prior to January 1, 1963" as referred to in the Addenda C of the above Act and thus, it cannot be said that the profit margin from real estate speculation cannot be imposed on the land of this case.
Therefore, the decision of the court below that accepted the plaintiff's claim is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the decision of the court below, and the decision of the court below that points out the arguments cannot be appropriate for this case. The arguments are groundless.
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 Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)