beta
(영문) 대법원 1997. 12. 26. 선고 97누16732 판결

[양도소득세부과처분취소][공1998.2.1.(51),445]

Main Issues

The meaning of "public announcement of project approval under Land Expropriation Act and other Acts" under Article 16 (3) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act;

Summary of Judgment

Article 16 (3) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993), "Public announcement of project approval under the Land Expropriation Act and other Acts" means the public announcement of project approval under Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act, or the public announcement of project approval under other Acts, such as the Urban Planning Act and the Urban Redevelopment Act, is applied mutatis mutandis to the case where public projects are implemented under other Acts, and the above provisions of the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where measures that can be deemed the same as the public announcement of project approval under the same Act are taken, and thus, the procedure for land expropriation shall be deemed to be in a state where land expropriation may commence. Therefore, the determination and public announcement of urban planning under Articles 12 and 13 of the Urban Planning Act and the approval of its

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act, Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act ( December 31, 1993), Article 16(3) of the Land Expropriation Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu375 Decided November 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 1733), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu353 Decided February 8, 1985 (Gong1985, 81), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu353 Decided February 8, 1985 (Gong1985, 425)

Plaintiff, Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, Appellee

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu4038 delivered on September 3, 1997

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 16 (3) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993) which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the land provides that "the reduction and exemption of transfer income tax and additional collection, etc. on income accruing from the transfer of the land, etc. located within the project area publicly announced under the Land Expropriation Act or other Acts prior to the enforcement of this Act shall be governed by the following subparagraphs, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Articles 63 and 78," and where the land, etc. located within the project area publicly announced before December 31, 1992 is transferred under subparagraph 1, it shall be exempted from transfer income tax or special surtax." Since the "public announcement of project approval under the Land Expropriation Act" under the above provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Land Expropriation Act or the "public announcement of project approval under the Urban Redevelopment Act" under Article 16 (3) of the Addenda to the said Act, it shall not be deemed that the above public announcement of project approval under Article 185 of the Land Expropriation Act shall be interpreted to be applied mutatis mutandis.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below excluded the application of Article 16 (3) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as to the income accrued from the transfer of the land to Seoul Special Metropolitan City (road) on January 16, 1995 by the plaintiff to the implementer of the urban planning project on December 27, 1966, for which the urban planning (road) was determined and announced as of June 21, 196 and the cadastral approval was announced as of December 27, 196, and the execution plan for the urban planning (road) was announced as of September 15, 1994. The court below is just in accordance with the above opinion of the party members, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles such as theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)