Seocho 209west 1759 (O6, 16, 2009)

Where a person owns land appurtenant to a house other than one house, he/she shall not be deemed one house owner for one household.

From the date when the tax liability was established in 2009, the land annexed to a house other than one house shall be deemed as one house for one household even if the land annexed to the house other than one house is owned, and the amendment was made, but the interpretation of the provisions prior to the amendment falls under two houses.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 2 (Definitions of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act)

Article 7 (Taxpayer of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax amounting to 5,508,500 won for the year 2008 and special rural development tax amounting to 1,101,700 for the Plaintiff on November 19, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2008년도 귀속 종합부동산세 과세기준일인 2008. 6. 1. 현재, 서울 서초 구 ☆☆동 ☆☆아파트 80동 504호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)와 경북 영덕군 남정 면 ★★리 183 대 147㎡ 중 1/3 지분(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)을 각 소유하고 있다.

B. On the other hand, on the land of this case, the land of this case has a sapapap house owned by the Gabal coa (8 square meters), a wooden sap house (5 square meters), a wooden sap house owned by the Gabal ○○, and two sapap house owned by the Gabal ○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the building of this case”).

C. On November 19, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the instant apartment of KRW 6,445,470 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2008, and KRW 1,289,090 of the special rural development tax for the following reasons: (a) on the ground that the publicly notified price of the instant apartment exceeds the standard amount of taxation on the housing under the former Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008).

D. The Defendant, ex officio on January 23, 2009, applied the provision of Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7923, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “the Act”) (the applicable ratio of the tax base in 2008 to 80%) by reducing the amount of the gross real estate tax for 2008 to KRW 5,508,500, and the special rural development tax for 1,101,70 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff constitutes a single-household who owns land annexed to a house under one person’s own housing and another person’s name, and thus, constitutes a single-household housing owner, despite being subject to the tax credit for a single-household housing owner as prescribed by Article 9(6) and (7) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The meaning of 'one house owner per household' in the case of applying the tax credit for one house owner of comprehensive real estate holding tax

Since the principle of strict interpretation derived from the ideology of no taxation without law and tax equity applies not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements of tax credit or tax exemption, it is not allowed to expand or analogically interpret the requirements of tax credit or tax exemption as favorable to taxpayers without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006).

The main sentence of Article 8(1), Article 9(5), (6), and (7) of the Act, and Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21193, Dec. 26, 2008) provide that "one house owner" means a house owner who owns only one house which is subject to property tax, among members of a household, in cases where only one house among members of a household owns a house subject to property tax. According to Article 180 subparag. 3, Articles 181, 183(1), and 189(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Act, etc., the term "house" means all or part of a building constructed so that a person can live in a residential life and land annexed thereto; both the building and land annexed thereto are subject to property tax on the house. However, in cases where the owner of a building and land annexed thereto are different from the building subject to property tax on the house.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that a person who owns land annexed to a building subject to property tax other than a house does not correspond to a "one house owner for one household".

Meanwhile, Article 8(4) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, amended by Act No. 9710 on May 27, 2009, newly established a provision that a person who owns only one house and land annexed to another house shall be deemed one house per household if he/she owns a house (excluding a case where he/she owns only land annexed to a house) and land annexed to another house (referring to land annexed thereto where the owner of a building and land annexed to a house is different) and that this Act applies to the year in which this Act enters into force. According to the National Assembly’s minutes, review report, review report, parliamentary agenda, etc. under the Act prior to the amendment, it appears that the aforementioned provision was newly established in order to alleviate his/her burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax as he/she does not constitute one house owner and land annexed to another house. According to the foregoing supplementary provision, the above provision is deemed to have been established in order to apply the tax liability for the year 2009 to one house and land annexed to one house owner without permission under the Act’s strict interpretation.

Therefore, in the case of applying the tax credit for one house owner of comprehensive real estate holding tax for one household, it is reasonable to view that not only one house which is subject to the property tax, but also the owner of the land attached to the house owned by another person, is not subject to the tax credit for one house owner for one household.

(2) For the plaintiff:

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not own only the apartment of this case, which is subject to property tax on housing, but separately owns the land of this case, which is owned by another person, which is land owned by another person, which is subject to property tax on housing. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as one house owner for one household under Article 8(1) of the Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.