beta
(영문) 대법원 2012. 01. 12. 선고 2011두22983 판결

부동산 양도 후에 사업시행인가를 받았으므로 과세특례규정이 적용되지 아니함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul High Court 2009Nu3551 (Law No. 18, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

2007west4024 (208.07.14)

Title

Since the project implementation authorization was obtained after the transfer of real estate, the special provisions are not applicable.

Summary

Since the non-party company obtained authorization to implement an urban environment rearrangement project only after the transfer of real estate, the special provisions on taxation do not apply to the transfer of real estate.

Related statutes

Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

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

Cases

2011du22983 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct capital gains tax

Plaintiff-Appellant

XX

Defendant-Appellee

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu35551 Decided August 18, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

January 12, 2011

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below’s determination that the transfer of real estate in this case does not apply to the transfer of real estate in this case since the non-party company obtained authorization to implement the urban environment rearrangement project on May 25, 2007, which was after the transfer of the real estate in this case, based on its reasoning is justifiable in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court precedents. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Tax Restriction (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006).

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 on the bench.