Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(a) Details of the disposition;

(1) On November 9, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant lands from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-○○○○○○○○○ 136.5 square meters, and from March 19, 1988, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant lands to ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Nonindicted○”) on or around June 20, 2005, and then transferred each of the instant lands to ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “Nonindicted○”) by receiving full payment of the remainder of each of the instant lands from Nonparty Company on or around December 7, 2006.

on February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid 468,507,740 won (1,478,511,564 won) as capital gains tax calculated based on the actual transaction price of each land of this case (the tax base amount of 1,478,51,564 won) to the Defendant on the basis of the application of special taxation of capital gains tax under Article 85 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Taxation Act") (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Taxation Act"), which was amended and deleted by Act No. 8146, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Taxation Act") on May 30, 207, when the amount of capital gains tax is calculated based on the standard market price under the above provisions, the amount of capital gains tax is changed to the amount of capital gains tax calculated based on the standard market price under the above provisions.

On August 7, 2007, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the non-party company, the transferee, was not designated as a public project operator until the transfer of each land of this case.

(b) Designation of an urban environmental improvement zone and authorization for project implementation;

(1) On June 30, 2005, Seoul, where each of the instant lands belongs, the ○○○○○ area, where each of the instant lands is located, was designated as a speculative district other than the housing, and was designated as a balanced development promotion area by ○○○○○ area on November 18, 2003. On March 13, 2006, Seoul, publicly notified ○○○-○○○ area, which was designated as an urban environmental improvement area for ○○○○-○○○○○ area.

The non-party company was notified by the head of ○○○ on May 4, 2006 of measures to preserve cultural heritage in relation to the urban environment rearrangement project. On June 16, 2006, the traffic impact deliberation committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was subject to conditional decision on the traffic impact assessment. On June 29, 2006, the non-party company was notified of the results of prohibited acts and cancellation of facilities in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone of Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○ Office of Education. On June 30, 2006, the non-party company was notified of the results of deliberation by the Construction Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○ Office of Education.

On December 22, 2006, after the date of the balance settlement opened on each land of this case, the non-party company applied for authorization for the implementation of the urban environmental improvement zone for ○○○○○○○○○. The head of ○○○○○ on May 25, 2007, notified the non-party company as the project implementer and notified the approval for the implementation of the urban environmental improvement zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul's evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and issues

The Plaintiff acquired each land of this case before the designation of the rearrangement zone, which is the time of acquisition as prescribed by the special taxation provision of this case, and transferred it to the assignee of the urban environment rearrangement project, on December 7, 200, within the time of its transfer. Thus, in calculating the transfer income tax under each land of this case, the special taxation provision of this case shall apply, and thus, the transfer income tax shall be calculated based on the standard market price. Thus, the disposition of this case

The defendant asserts that the special taxation provision of this case does not apply because the non-party company, the transferee of each land, was not authorized to implement the urban environment rearrangement project until the time of transfer of each land of this case, and thus, is not a

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the special taxation provisions of this case can be applied in calculating the transfer income tax by deeming the project implementer in an unauthorized state as the project implementer stipulated in the special taxation provisions of this case, in case where the project implementation implementation is performed after transferring the land to the project implementer who implements the project without obtaining authorization for the project implementation within the urban

3. Relevant statutes;

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

Article 104-2 (Operation of Designated Area)

Article 85 (Special Taxation for Capital Gains Tax on Real Estate for Public Works in Designated Area)

Article 79-2 (Special Taxation for Transfer Income Tax on Real Estate for Public Works in Designated Area)

Article 2 (Definition of Terms in Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas)

Article 4 (Formulation of Rearrangement Plan and Designation of Rearrangement Zone)

Article 8 (Implementers of Housing Redevelopment Projects, etc.)

Article 28 (Authorization for Project Implementation)

Article 2 (Definitions)

Article 16 (Approval of Project Plan)

4. Determination

(a) Contents of the Income Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the method of calculating transfer value;

Article 96 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; Act No. 96 (1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Jan. 1, 2006); however, Article 96 (2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 96 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer price of the relevant assets shall be based on the "standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant assets"; however, the transfer price of the relevant assets to the project implementer by December 31, 2006 shall be based on the "standard market price at the time of the transfer of the relevant assets"; however, Article 85 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (the provisions of this case) provides that the transfer price of the relevant real estate to the project implementer under the Act No. 9 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (the "Act No. 1306, Jan. 1, 2006) shall be applied to the transfer price of the relevant real estate within the designated area.

B. Purpose of legislation of the special taxation provision of this case

The legislative intent of the special taxation provision of this case is to relieve the taxpayer's tax burden by allowing the transfer value to be based on the standard market price rather than the actual transaction price if the real estate within the speculative designated area is transferred or expropriated for the public interest purpose, and to promote the smooth implementation of public projects at the same time by reducing the taxpayer's tax burden by allowing the transfer value to be based on the standard market price rather than the actual transaction price if the real estate within the speculative designated area is transferred or expropriated for the public interest purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du1679, Dec. 27, 2007).

C. Scope of a project operator under the special taxation provisions of this case

(1) According to the special taxation provisions of this case and Article 79-2 (1) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, when the land acquired before the designation date of the improvement zone is transferred to the project implementer before December 31, 2006, the transfer value can be calculated on the basis of the standard market price. However, Article 2 (8) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the project implementer is not separately defined in the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 2 (1) 8 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents") does not stipulate that the project implementer shall be deemed the project implementer. Therefore, in applying the special taxation provisions of this case, the limited interpretation is to mean only the project implementer subject to the project implementation authorization under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, or it is to be interpreted that the project implementer is included in the project implementer

According to the principle of tax law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogical interpretation without any reasonable reason. However, where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through the interpretation between the laws and regulations, the interpretation can be made in a manner that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose into account within the extent that it does not undermine the legal stability and predictability pursued by the principle of no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13784, Feb. 14, 2008).

Article 12(1) of the Housing Act provides that a project implementer shall be granted an authorization for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project under the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and that the project implementer shall be granted an authorization for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project under the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Regulation of Special Taxation; and that the project implementer shall be granted an authorization for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project under the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; and that the project implementer shall be granted an authorization for the implementation of an urban environment improvement project under the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; and that the project implementer shall be granted an authorization for the implementation of an improvement project under the Act on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Regulations on the Regulation of Special Taxation and the Regulations on the Regulation of Land, etc.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the special taxation provision of this case shall apply to the calculation of capital gains from the transfer of the land of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case which rejected the plaintiff's request for correction on a different premise is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.