국토교통부장관의 사업인정고시가 없었던 이상, 조세특례제한법 제77조 제1항 제1호의 세액감면 대상에 해당하지 아니함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Group-63108 (Law No. 29, 2018)
Unless a public announcement of project approval has been made by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, it shall not be subject to reduction or exemption under Article 77 (1) 1
Unless there exists a public announcement of project approval by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, even if a local government purchased real estate to serve for public works, such transfer alone cannot be deemed as subject to tax reduction or exemption under Article 77 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects
2018Nu64384 Disposition of revocation of refusal to correct capital gains tax
Plaintiff and Appellant
Gyeong Kim
Defendant, Appellant
■■세무서장
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Gudan63108 decided August 29, 2018
November 8, 2018
November 29, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition rejecting capital gains tax correction against the plaintiff on January 5, 2018 shall be revoked.
1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ 4 lines under 2, 3 lines, and 1 lines each "Public Works Act" shall be raised as "Land Compensation Act".
○ From 12 up to 3 lines under 4 pages shall be as follows:
The purpose of Article 77 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to exempt a person who transfers the relevant land, etc. to a public project site, etc. in order to reduce the difficulty of securing the site for the public project and to make the use of the land, etc. efficient.
3) In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, the transfer of this case does not constitute the transfer of the land, etc. necessary for the public service project to which the Land Compensation Act applies, as prescribed by Article 77(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, to the executor of the public service project. Thus, the disposition of this case is lawful.
① Although ○○-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City purchased the instant real estate to use it as a public child care center, there is no project approval (Article 2 subparag. 7 and Article 20(1)) as stipulated in the Public Works Act by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and there is no project approval (Article 2 subparag. 7 and Article 20(1)) by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
② In the process of purchasing the instant real estate, ○○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government did not undergo the acquisition procedure through consultation prescribed by the Land Compensation Act, such as the preparation of land and goods protocols, and no "written confirmation of purchase of land requested by the Plaintiff" was issued.
③ The Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○○ purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff in the process of promoting the purchase of land, etc. for the establishment of a child care center from around 2013 in accordance with the policies on the expansion of public child care centers. However, the purchase price under the said sales contract is calculated based on the appraised value requested by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○-gu and the Plaintiff, respectively. The Plaintiff transferred the instant
④ Even if ○○○-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City purchased the instant real estate for the operation of a child-care center under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Land Compensation Act, such circumstance alone does not constitute the transfer of “land, etc. necessary for public works to which the Land Compensation Act applies”.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.