early 209west1771 (Law No. 9, 29 May 29, 2009)

Taxation of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax on Farmland that is returned to the name of the clan due to termination of the trust;

Land corresponding to the farmland which is returned to the name of the clan as the cause of registration for the termination of the trust shall be land subject to separate taxation under the Local Tax Act.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting correction of the portion of comprehensive real estate tax for 2006, which exceeds KRW 13,872,745, out of total real estate tax for 67,552,365, and the portion which exceeds KRW 13,774,549, out of total real estate tax for 206, and the portion which exceeds KRW 2,774,549, out of total rural development tax for 13,510,473, and the disposition rejecting correction of the portion which exceeds KRW 37,57,717, out of total rural development tax for 207,07, the portion which exceeds KRW 107,030,364, the total amount which reverts to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2008, and the portion which exceeds KRW 37,557,71,543, among special rural development tax for 21,406,072, which belongs to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 70% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2006 and the special rural development tax for 13,510,473 won for 67,52,365 won for 2006 and the special rural development tax for 13,510,473 won for 107,030,364 won for 207 and the special rural development tax for 21,406,072 won for 207 for the Plaintiff on November 27, 2008, and the Defendant’s refusal to rectify the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2008 for 119,376,457 won for 2008 and the special rural development tax for 23,875,291 for 208 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Gross real estate holding tax for reverts in 2006;

(1) On December 15, 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 78,74,730, and the amount of KRW 15,53,400, and the amount of KRW 78,74,730, and the amount of KRW 15,00,00,00 for comprehensive real estate holding tax on the land belonging to the Seoul Central Real Estate Holding Tax, which is subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, by setting the land attached to the same 71st and 15 units of land owned by the Plaintiff, and the same 24-1 unit of land attached to the same 71st and 15 units of land owned by the Plaintiff.

(2) However, on February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that the total amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year of 2006 was refunded, and the Defendant rejected the remainder of the claim for correction except for the Plaintiff’s request for partial reduction of the comprehensive real estate holding tax by excluding only 41-9 square meters and 262 square meters prior to September 24, 2008 and 41-10 square meters prior to the same 41-10 square meters from the taxable subject of taxation.

(3) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 25, 2008. On May 29, 2009, the Tax Tribunal decided to exclude the area of 853 square meters prior to the AAdong 41 from the subject of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

(4) Meanwhile, on October 25, 2005, the Defendant, on the other hand, reduced the total income tax for the year 2006, KRW 67,52,365, and special rural development tax to KRW 13,510,473, respectively according to the above adjudication decision and decision on July 6, 2009, on the ground that the housing was already transferred to the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the grounds of an agreement on public land purchase.

(b) Gross real estate holding tax for revert year 2007.

(1) On December 17, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 122,449,240, the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax belonging to year 2007, the amount of KRW 122,449,240, the amount of special rural development tax belonging to year 2007, and KRW 24,489,840, the amount of land attached to the same 71st and 15 units of land attached to the same 71 unit of land and the same 24-1 unit of housing.

(2) On September 26, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that the total amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax reverted to year 2007 should also be refunded, and the Defendant rejected it on November 27, 2008.

(3) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 25, 2008. On May 29, 2009, the Tax Tribunal decided to exclude the same 853 square meters prior to AAdong 41, AAdong 41-9, 262 square meters prior to AAdong 41-10 and 1,966 square meters prior to the same 41-10 square meters from the subject of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

(4) On July 6, 2009, the Defendant decided to exclude the AAdong 291-3 from the taxable subject of taxation. The comprehensive income tax for the year 2007 was reduced to KRW 107,030,364, and the special rural development tax was reduced to KRW 21,406,072.

(c) Gross real estate holding tax for reverts year 2008.

(1) On December 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed a comprehensive real estate holding tax amounting to KRW 161,234,120 and KRW 32,246,820 on the Plaintiff, who imposed a comprehensive real estate holding tax amounting to KRW 161,234,120, and special rural development tax for rural development tax for KRW 32,246,820 on the land attached to the 71st above ground of the same 71st above.

(2) On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On May 29, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to exclude the same 853 square meters prior to AAdong 41, AAdong 41-9, 262 square meters prior to AAdong 41-9, and 41-10 square meters prior to the same 41-10 square meters from the subject of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

"(3) As of June 17, 2009, the defendant reduced the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2008 to KRW 119,376,457, and the special rural development tax for 23,875,291 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case in total")," "No dispute over the grounds for recognition" (the grounds for recognition), "No dispute over the remaining parts which were corrected on July 6, 2009 and June 17, 2009", "No entry of evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-3, and evidence No. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Illegal taxation on housing

“The Plaintiff owns a 258 square meters and a 3,144 square meters per 71 square meters per 71 square meters per dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 42, and on the above land, there are buildings owned by the owner of the said building and the owner of the said land in the form of a leapju and Kim-beneficiary. In applying the proviso of Article 183(1) of the Local Tax Act, the Defendant calculated the calculated tax amount for the relevant housing by calculating the calculated tax amount according to the proportion of the base value of the building and the appurtenant land pursuant to Article 111(2) of the Local Tax Act if the owner of the relevant appurtenant land is different from the owner of the said appurtenant land, and then assessed the Plaintiff on the value of the relevant land. However, the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (hereinafter “comprehensive Real Estate Tax”) did not provide for the method of calculating the calculated tax for the cases where the owner of a building and appurtenant land are different as provided in the proviso of Article 183(1)

The Defendant’s land subject to taxation, excluding 1,283 square meters and 2,360 square meters of miscellaneous land in Jung-gu, Seoul and 77 Miscellaneous land in Jung-gu, Seoul and 82 miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land is classified into “the key land”. The instant land is the land which was held in title trust among the land subject to taxation in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and each of the land subject to taxation in 2008, the title trust of which was made in title trust (hereinafter “the land subject to title trust”) on December 31, 1954 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future due to the title trust termination on April 29, 191. Accordingly, the time when the Plaintiff owned the said land is not the time when the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, but it is unlawful for the instant land to be subject to separate taxation on May 31, 190.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) The part on the house

The former Gross Real Estate Tax (amended by Act No. 9273 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different persons in the case of a house, but Article 7(1) provides that “any person who is liable to pay property tax on a house as of the tax base date and exceeds 600 million won in the aggregate of the officially announced prices of a house which is subject to property tax in Korea shall be liable to pay comprehensive real estate tax.” Thus, even if the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff liable to pay property tax on a house which is subject to property tax under the Local Tax Act is liable to pay comprehensive real estate tax on the house which is subject to property tax. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Part on land

According to the evidence No. 3-1 to 14, evidence No. 4-1 to 18, evidence No. 7-1, and evidence No. 7-2, respectively, the registration of ownership was made on December 31, 1954 for the forest and land No. 28-1 in Jung-gu, Seoul and the forest and land No. 1-3 in Jung-dong, respectively, and six in the future. However, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above owners on September 1, 1990 for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of title trust on September 27, 1990, with a favorable judgment issued by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 11480, Sep. 27, 1990). The plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 1991 for the title trust on the ground that the title trust was terminated on September 1, 1990, and all the issues of the forest and land No. 28-1 in Jung-dong, Seoul.

Article 132 (1) 2 (f), (2) 4, and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who actually owns the property shall be liable for property tax (Article 183 (1)), and Article 132 (1) 2 (f), (2) 4, and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that farmland and forests owned by a clan shall be subject to separate taxation only before May 31, 1990. In light of the purport and history, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view “ownership” includes cases where farmland or woodland is purchased and title trust is held with a third party after the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1328, Aug. 22, 200).” As to this case, the defendant fails to present objective evidence that the plaintiff had actually owned the issues of this case before May 31, 1990, and so long as the registration of title transfer was made in the name of the third party, it is justified to prove that there was no error in the above procedure of presumption of ownership registration and evidence.

(3) Justifiable tax amount

Furthermore, if the land is excluded from taxable subject matter, remaining among the taxable subject matter of land is limited to 1,283 square meters and 82 miscellaneous land in Jung-gu, Seoul. According to the evidence above, the annual officially assessed individual land price of the above land is as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of the amount of tax. Thus, the legitimate amount of tax calculated by excluding the disputed land from taxable subject to taxation is as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of the amount of tax in the separate sheet of tax. Thus, as stated in the "justifiable amount of tax" column, comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2006, such as 13,872,745 won, special rural development tax, 2,774,57,717 won, special rural development tax, special rural development tax, 7,51,543 won, comprehensive real estate holding tax in 207, 208, 31,442,106 won, special rural development tax, 628,421 won should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim against the exceeding amount of the disposition of this case is well-grounded, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting part of it.