Article 79-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 104-2

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the key issue of the instant case are the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance court, with the exception of the following: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: (a) The reasoning of the disposition is as follows; (b) the designation of an urban environmental improvement zone and the authorization for project implementation; and (b) whether the disposition is legitimate; (b) whether the relevant Act and subordinate statutes (from the first to the fifth to the fifth to the first half) are legitimate.

A. The second and second " July 25, 2007," which reads " July 23, 2007," as " July 23, 2007," and read " June 16, 2006, which will be the third and seventh" as " June 19, 2006," respectively.

B. In a 4th 10th , an investigation agency stipulated the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) as a ' effect prior to deletion' (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006).

2. Determination

Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 8146 of Dec. 30, 2006) and Article 79-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988 of Feb. 28, 2007) provide that where a resident transfers (including cases of expropriation) real estate within a designated area under Article 104-2 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) to a project implementer under Article 4 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785 of Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") to calculate the transfer value and acquisition value of the real estate within the designated area under Article 104-2 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Provisions for Taxation").

Meanwhile, Article 8(3) and (4) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that an urban environment improvement project may be implemented by an association of owners of a plot of land, etc. or by owners of a plot of land, etc., and the Mayor/Gun may designate the owners of a plot of land, etc. as the project implementer if there are certain grounds for the implementation of the improvement project. Article 28(1) provides that a project implementer shall submit the project implementation plan, etc. to the head of a Si/Gun and obtain authorization for the implementation of the project, and Article 38 provides that a project implementer may expropriate or use land, goods, or other rights if necessary to implement the improvement project. Article 85(7) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a person who implements the improvement project without obtaining authorization for the implementation of the project shall

The text and purport of the above provisions, especially the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, recognize the project implementer’s right to expropriate real estate, and even if the transferor transfers the real estate to the project implementer, the transfer value and acquisition value are bound to be restricted by the standard market price. Therefore, the legislative intent of the special taxation provisions in this case is to ease the transfer income tax and promote the smooth implementation of the rearrangement project at the same time, and it is impossible to implement the rearrangement project without obtaining an authorization for project implementation under Article 28 of the Act. Where the owner of land, etc. wishes to become the project implementer, unless there are special circumstances, such as the designation of the project implementer under Article 8(4) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, it is difficult to specify the project implementer until the authorization for project implementation is granted, and it is difficult to view that the right to expropriate the project implementer is granted to the owner of land, etc. before and after the authorization for project implementation is granted, and it is difficult for the owner of land, etc. to obtain the said special taxation provisions after the project implementation authorization.

The instant disposition that deemed that the instant special taxation provision does not apply to the Plaintiff who transferred the instant land to the non-party company before obtaining authorization to implement the project under the Urban Improvement Act is lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.