The time of acquisition of real estate acquired by possession for over 20 years;

The time of acquisition of land acquired by possession for not less than 20 years is not the date of registration of ownership transfer, but the actual possession of such land is commenced.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

갑 제1호증, 갑 제3호증의 3, 갑 제4호증의 1, 2, 갑 제5호증, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 1966.12.24.부터 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 전 2,586㎡(위 토지는 1989.11.30. 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지 전 2,479㎡와 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지 전 107㎡로 분할되었다. 이하에서는 위 분할된 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지 전 2,479㎡를 이 사건 토지라고 한다)를 점유하기 시작하여 20년이 경과하자 등기명의자인 소외 장ㅇㅇ을 상대로 취득시효완성을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차이행 청구의 소를 제기하여 1989.11.23. 원고 승소판결을 선고받았고, 이에 대하여 그 사건의 피고인 위 장ㅇㅇ이 항소하였으나 서울고등법원에서 1990.10.23. 위 장ㅇㅇ의 항소를 기각하는 판결이 선고되어 원고 승소의 위 판결이 확정된 사실, 위 판결이 확정된 후인 1990.12.3. 원고는 위 판결에 기하여 이 사건 토지에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다가 1993.2.4. 이 사건 토지 중 1,553.4㎡를 소외 ㅇㅇ공사에 매도한 사실, 이에 피고는 원고가 이 사건 토지에 대한 점유를 개시한 때에 이를 취득한 것으로 보고 이에 대한 의제취득일인 1977.1.1.을 취득시기로 하여 양도차익을 계산한 다음 원고에게 1993.분 양도소득세 금 558,321,060원을 부과, 고지(원고가 이 사건 토지 중 일부를 매도할 때 함께 매도한 같은 동 ㅇㅇ, ㅇㅇ번지에 대한 양도소득세도 포함되어 있음, 이하 이 사건 부과처분이라고 한다)한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 이에 반하는 증거가 없다.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and related Acts and subordinate statutes, the plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case is unlawful in calculating the transfer margin from the transfer of part of the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff through the completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession, although the plaintiff filed a report on the date of commencement of possession of the plaintiff's land of this case on the date of commencement of possession of the land of this case, although the plaintiff filed a report on the acquisition date of the plaintiff's land of this case on the date of commencement of possession of the land of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer of assets shall be determined by the Presidential Decree in calculating gains from transfer of assets, and Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14083, Dec. 31, 1993) provides that the time of acquisition and time of transfer under Article 27 of the Act shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the assets concerned except for the following cases. In addition, General Rule 2119 (27) of the Income Tax Act provides that the starting date of possession of the real estate concerned shall be the date of acquisition in case of acquisition of ownership after possession of real estate by a company owned for 20 years under Article 24

In addition, Article 245 (1) of the Civil Code provides that a person who possesses real estate in peace and openly with the intention to own it for twenty years shall acquire its ownership by registration, and Article 247 (1) of the Civil Code provides that the effect of acquisition of ownership under Article 2 of the Civil Code shall be retroactive to the commencement of possession.

Meanwhile, Article 16 of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act provides that the land and building acquired before December 31, 1976, among the assets stipulated in Article 23, shall be deemed to have been acquired on January 1, 197.

C. Determination

In calculating gains from the transfer of assets under Article 27 of the Income Tax Act and Article 53 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the acquisition time of assets shall be the date of liquidation of assets rather than the date of acquisition of civil ownership by completing the registration of transfer of assets, and the person who occupies real estate takes into account not only the time of commencement of possession of the real estate but also the time of commencement of possession at the time of commencement of possession, as well as the time of commencement of possession at the time of commencement of possession under Article 247 (1) of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to view that in calculating gains from the transfer of real estate acquired by prescription, the acquisition time is not the date of acquisition of ownership of the real estate by completing the registration of transfer on the ground of completion of the acquisition by prescription, but also the date of commencement of possession of the real estate. [The provisions of General Rules of the Income Tax Act 2119 (27)]

Therefore, in calculating gains from transfer from the transfer of part of the land of this case acquired by the Plaintiff through the completion of the prescription period, its acquisition time shall be December 24, 196, when the Plaintiff commenced possession of the land of this case. According to Article 16 of the Addenda of the Income Tax Act, the acquisition date of real estate acquired before December 31, 1976 shall be January 1, 1977. Thus, in calculating gains from transfer of part of the land of this case, it is lawful that the Defendant deemed the time of acquisition to be January 1, 197 in calculating gains from transfer of part of the land of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of the disposition on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.