Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan8034 ( November 25, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3446 ( December 31, 2010)

Provisions of the Special Taxation shall apply only to cases of being designated as a project operator at the time of transfer.

Special provisions on taxation may apply only to cases where a landowner, etc. transfers real estate to a person designated as a project implementer in advance, and where a landowner, etc. is not designated as a project implementer at the time of transfer, the special provisions on taxation may not apply even if

Article 85 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu50 Revocation of disposition rejecting to correct capital gains tax

Song XX

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan8034 decided November 25, 2011

May 2, 2012

June 13, 2012

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's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on July 30, 2010 against the plaintiff on July 30, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the 9th day to the 17th day of the 5th day, the following amounts:

[See Supreme Court Decision 209Du14088 Decided May 26, 201), considering the language and text of each provision and the following ①, where a landowner, etc. transfers real estate to a person designated as a project implementer in advance, the provision on the special taxation of this case can only be applied to an urban planning facility project to be implemented by the landowner, etc., and where a landowner, etc. was not designated as a project implementer at the time of transfer, it should not be deemed that the provision on the special taxation of this case is not applicable even if the land owner, etc. was later designated as a project implementer (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1408, May 26, 201)

O 6 The following shall be added to the following 3rd below:

[Plaintiff’s assertion that the special taxation provisions of this case were applicable to the non-party company’s transfer of land to the non-party company without being designated as a project operator. However, since the special taxation provisions of this case were applied to some other persons, the disposition of this case is not unlawful due to erroneous application by law. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in a lawsuit claiming that the non-party company’s transfer of land to the non-party company without being designated as a project operator should be subject to the special taxation provisions of this case (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Nu23630). The appeal was dismissed in the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu17143), and the appeal was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30946). The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit)

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.