Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2010Guhap697 ( October 07, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2008J 4096 (No. 24, 2010)

If the publicly announced price of the house owned exceeds the standard amount, the person liable to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be deemed to be the owner of the house

If the aggregate amount of the published prices of all houses falling under the domestic property tax taxable object owned by the taxpayer exceeds the standard amount, even though the taxpayer owns only land annexed thereto, it shall be the taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on house.

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposing taxes on 2011Nu414

AAABBB

Head of the tax office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap697 Decided June 7, 2011

September 28, 2011

October 12, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant imposed on November 24, 2008, but revoked the imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax and the special rural development tax for the plaintiff who corrected the reduction on January 15, 2009, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case, and the part on the legality of the instant disposition from 3rd to 6th 1st 1st 3th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 60,

2. The part that has been re-written by cutting in the trial (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case";

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) argument of lack of taxation requirements (i.e., claim)

The aggregate amount of construction prices of each building and land on the ground of this case, even though comprehensive real estate holding tax can be imposed only when the publicly announced price of each house (building and land) exceeds 600 million won, is not more than 000 won in total. In addition, even though the plaintiff owns the land in this case, and each building on the ground is owned by all other, it is an illegal disposition that imposes comprehensive real estate holding tax on the plaintiff who owns the land which is not the owner of the building but the owner of the land.

(2) The argument that the property subject to non-taxation corresponds to ‘in the border area' (B)

The land in this case is designated as a traditional temple preservation area which is connected without the division of main facilities of the temple, and falls under the category of "in the border of the property subject to non-taxation provided for in Article 6 (1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act, Article 186 (5) of the Local Tax Act, Article 137 (2) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 2 (3) of the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act, and Article 2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act, and the disposition in this case imposing comprehensive real estate tax, etc. on the land in this case which falls under non-taxable

B. Determination

(1) As to the allegation to lack of taxation requirement ① claim to be claimed

(A) Article 7 (1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act provides that "the aggregate amount of published prices of housing subject to property tax in Korea exceeds 000 won as a requirement for the liability to pay comprehensive real estate tax on housing," while Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act, Article 180 subparagraph 3 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Housing Act provide that "housing subject to comprehensive real estate tax means a building and land annexed thereto which is a structure in which a person can carry on a residential life, and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act, Article 183 of the Local Tax Act and Article 183 of the Local Tax Act provide that "where the owner of a building and land annexed to a house are different, the owner shall be deemed the person liable to pay taxes in proportion to the standard market prices of the building and land."

(B) Therefore, if the aggregate amount of the published prices of all houses (if the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different, the value calculated in proportion to the statutory standard price ratio) owned by the owner exceeds 600 million won, and even if the taxpayer owns only the appurtenant land without owning the building, and the taxpayer becomes the taxpayer of the comprehensive real estate for housing. On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this portion is rejected.

(2) As to the assertion that the property subject to non-taxation corresponds to ‘in the border area' (B)

(A) Article 186 of the Local Tax Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, provides that "if property tax is non-taxable according to the classification of uses, and if property is used for profit-making business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, or if part of the property is not used directly for its original purpose, this provision shall not apply to the property in accordance with the classification of uses."

(B) However, as seen earlier, the instant land is used as the land annexed to the housing for the purpose of residence of the general local residents, and in light of the purpose of use, management status, etc. of the instant land, and even if the instant land is arable, it cannot be deemed that it is directly used for the purpose of the land in the border as provided in Article 2 of the Traditional Buddhist Temple Preservation Act, which is the object of the land in the border area, as provided in Article 2 of the Traditional Buddhist Temple Preservation Act, the instant land is excluded from the subject of non-taxation pursuant to the proviso of Article 186 of the Local Tax Act. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.