beta
(영문) 대법원 1990. 9. 25. 선고 90누5542 판결

[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1990.11.15.(884),2202]

Main Issues

Procedural requirements for exemption from transfer income tax on the transferred land used in the national housing construction site.

Summary of Judgment

In order for a purchaser to be exempted from capital gains tax under Article 62 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act because the transferred real estate is used for the national housing construction site, the purchaser shall file an application for exemption from capital gains tax with the

[Reference Provisions]

Article 62 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Exemption

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5559 Delivered on September 25, 1990

Plaintiff-Appellant

Park Jong-gu, Attorney Kim Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Head of the Military Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Gu1437 delivered on June 12, 1990

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the plaintiff voluntarily acknowledged that he closed his member timber company around December 15, 1984 (the preparatory document as of Apr. 23, 1990 and the third oral statement) and the third oral statement as of Apr. 12, 199, and even if it is deemed that the permanent management card of an individual entrepreneur of value-added tax was not included in the closure of business in 1985, it is not included in the closure of business but in the closure of business, the "taxation, temporary closure, and permanent closure" are deemed to have been ex officio cancelled due to the removal of the place of business (the present place of business is a vacant, no inventory is available). Thus, at the time of making an investment in kind in the non-party limited partnership member rental housing (hereinafter referred to as the "owned company"), the decision of the court below was that the plaintiff's real estate of this case was not a legitimate person at the time of investment in kind under Article 45 (1) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Act No. 3939 of Nov. 28, 28, 1939). 19, 19393, 1932).

On the second ground for appeal

The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer income tax should be exempted pursuant to Article 62 of the National Housing Construction Site Act and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the real estate of this case was used in the national housing construction site, on the ground that the purchaser did not request the head of the competent tax office to exempt the transfer income tax of this case

The lower court did not render such judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that capital gains tax should be exempted on the ground that it falls under Article 45 of the same Act.

The essay is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)