이주자택지분양권의 취득가액에 주택 등의 취득비용은 포함되지 않음[국승]
Expenses incurred in acquiring housing, etc. shall not be included in the acquisition price of the ownership of the migrants' housing site;
A person who has first been granted the right to purchase a re-resident housing site shall acquire the right at the time of determination of the person subject to relocation measures, and this right is granted as part of living compensation apart from the transfer price of the housing, etc. provided for the relevant public project and is set separately for the sale price on the re-resident housing site. Thus, the expenses incurred in acquiring the said housing cannot be included
Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)
Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 114,549,90 won for the year 199 and resident tax of 11,454,90 won for the part of September 1, 2007 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고는 1991.8.10. 〇〇〇으로부터 〇〇〇 〇〇〇 〇〇〇-〇 지상 주택(이하 '이 사건 주택'이라 한다)을 매수하고 그 무렵 이에 관한 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다.
나. 그 후 이 사건 주택은 〇〇〇〇〇〇 택지개발사업지구에 포함되어 위 사업의 시행자인 〇〇〇〇〇〇에게 수용되었고, 원고는 〇〇〇〇〇〇로부터, 1998. 11. 5. 이 사건 주택에 대한 보상금 21,187,000원을 지급받고, 그 무렵 이주대대상자로 확인・결정을 받은 후, 1997. 7. 30. 이주자택지인 〇〇 〇〇〇〇 〇〇〇 〇〇-〇 301.4㎡를 분양받았다(이하 '이 사건 택지분양권'이라 한다).
다. 원고는 이 사건 택지에 대한 분양계약금 12,075,000원을 납부한 상태에서 1999. 11. 4. 〇〇〇에게 이 사건 택지분양권을 134,100,1000원에 양도한 후, 1999. 12. 8. 양도소득세 예정신고를 하면서 이 사건 택지분양권의 취득가액을 12,075,000원, 양도가액을 17,750,000원으로 신고하고 이에 따른 양도소득세를 납부하였다.
라. 피고는 〇〇〇세무서장으로부터 원고의 이 사건 택지분양권 양도가액이 134,100,000원으로 확인되었다는 내용의 과세자료를 통보받아 위 양도가액을 기초로 양도차익과 과세표준을 산정한 다음, 2007. 9. 1. 원고에게 청구취지 기재 금액과 같은 양도소득세 및 주민세를 부과하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2; Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13; Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On the basis that the Plaintiff owned the instant housing, the ownership of the instant housing site is granted to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s total of KRW 120,000,000, other registration taxes, brokerage fees, etc. paid by the Plaintiff while acquiring the instant housing should be deducted from the transfer value of the instant housing site ownership, as the acquisition value of the instant housing site ownership.
(b) Related statutes;
former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000)
Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income)
The transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the concerned year:
⒈ 토지 또는 건물의 양도로 인하여 발생하는 소득
⒉ 대통령령이 정하는 부동산에 관한 권리의 양도로 인하여 발생하는 소득
Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses in Transfer Income)
(1) In the calculation of gains on transfer of a resident, the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value shall be as follows:
⒈ 취득가액
(a) In case of assets as prescribed in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 94, the standard market price at the time the assets are acquired: Provided, That in case where the assets concerned fall under any of subparagraphs of Article 96 (1), it shall be based on the actual transaction price required for the acquisition of such assets;
⒉ 대통령령이 정하는 설비비와 개량비
⒊ 대통령령이 정하는 자본적지출액
⒋ 대통령령이 정하는 양도비
C. Determination
Where a housing site creation project operator concludes an individual sale contract on the basis of the right of sale of a resettled housing site and imposes capital gains tax on the income accrued from the transfer of the right of sale of the resettled housing site itself before full payment of the price is made, the person who first obtains the right of sale of the resettled housing site at the time of determining the person subject to relocation measures, and such right cannot be included in the acquisition price of the right of sale of the instant housing site granted separately from the transfer price of the housing, etc. provided for the relevant public project, as long as it cannot be included in the acquisition price of
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.