Suwon District Court 2009Guhap9605 ( October 27, 2010)

Early High Court Decision 2009Du0570 ( October 13, 2009)

Where one house and land annexed to another house are owned together, the obligation to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax.

In cases where one house and land annexed to another house are owned concurrently from the date on which the tax liability was established in 2009, it shall be regarded as one house per household.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax for the plaintiff on November 20, 2008 5,959,190 won and special rural development tax for the plaintiff on November 20, 208.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. An additional judgment or an additional statement of the grounds for appeal

A. In the instant appellate trial, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition, which did not grant a tax credit by deeming the instant land as a house and excluding the Plaintiff from the “one-household housing owner” is unlawful, although the instant land is being used as the site of the building, but is not itself a house, and thus cannot impose a property tax.

Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21193, Dec. 26, 2008) provides that "one house owner for one household who is subject to the provisions on the tax credit for comprehensive real estate holding tax for one house owner" refers to only one house which is subject to property tax for one household, among household members. Meanwhile, according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Local Tax Act and the Housing Act, "house" means a building with a structure that makes it possible to carry on a residential life and land annexed thereto, and all the above buildings and land annexed thereto shall be subject to property tax for a house. However, if the owners of a building and land annexed thereto are different, property tax for a residential building subject to property tax for a house is to be paid separately, and even if the building and land annexed thereto are different from the building owners, the land annexed to the residential building subject to the tax credit shall be interpreted separately as one house for one household.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that a person who owns land attached 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 provides that “where the owner of a house (excluding the case of owning only the land annexed to a house) and land annexed to another house (referring to the land annexed thereto where the owner of a building of a house and land annexed thereto is different) are owned together, this Act shall be deemed as one house for one household.” Article 8(2) of the Addenda provides that “this Act shall apply from the date this Act enters into force.” According to the review report, review report, agenda items, etc. of the National Assembly’s competent committee, under the Act prior to the amendment, only one house and land annexed to another house are excluded from the scope of long-term possession and tax credit for the aged, and thus, the said provision was newly established to alleviate their burden of comprehensive real estate holding. According to the aforementioned Addenda provision, the said newly established provision is established to ensure that the owner of a new house and land annexed to one house should be subject to the tax liability in the year 2009.

Therefore, in applying the tax credit provision for a single house owner of comprehensive real estate holding tax, it is reasonable to view that not only one house which is subject to property tax on housing but also a person who owns land annexed to a house owned by another person separately, is not subject to the tax credit for one house owner for one household. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiff on a different premise is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the scope of “one house for one household” under Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is stipulated as “the scope of one house for one household. In this case, the subject of tax credit should also be interpreted in accordance with the said provision. However, the Gross Real Estate Tax Act aims at enhancing equity in tax burden on possession of real estate by imposing comprehensive real estate tax on high-amount real estate holders, and promoting price stability of real estate, thereby contributing to balanced local finance and sound development of the national economy (Article 1 of the same Act). The purpose of the Income Tax Act is to determine the scope of one house for one household under Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act to the extent that it is necessary to achieve the goal different from the Income Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the same interpretation should be applied to the scope of one house for one household under Article 15

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.