Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan5837 ( December 10, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2007Du4565 (Ob. 20, 2008)

Where a transferee at the time of transfer of land is not designated as a public project operator, whether special taxation is granted.

The special provisions on taxation shall apply to cases where a business operator implements a project in the improvement zone before the project implementation approval is granted, and if the project operator transfers the land to the project, it shall conform to the language and purpose of legislation, etc.

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

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Claim: The defendant's rejection of the request for correction of transfer income tax belonging to the year 2006 against the plaintiff on August 7, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of a judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's request shall be dismissed; and

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except in the following cases. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The damaged part;

In case where the head of a Si/Gun directly implements a rearrangement project or the head of a Gun deems it necessary to implement a rearrangement project in an urgent manner due to a natural disaster, natural disaster, or other unavoidable causes, etc., even if the head of a Si/Gun directly implements a rearrangement project or implements a rearrangement project by designating a housing project operator, etc., even if the designation of a project operator is not obtained from an administrative agency, it can be a project operator who can implement an urban environment improvement project (in this case, the project implementation authorization has only the effect of approving and confirming the project operator who had been performing a rearrangement project by acquiring the land ownership prior to such designation and preparing a project implementation plan, etc., and only the non-party company also implements a project as a "land owner" without being designated from an administrative agency as a project operator.

If a land owner, etc. in the zone is already designated and publicly announced as a rearrangement zone under the 4-6th Urban Environment Improvement Zone Act, the scope of the land owner, etc. (Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Do Act) who determined the location and area of the zone is determined as a 'urban Environment Improvement Zone'. On the other hand, any person who intends to perform an act prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as construction of buildings, installation of structures, change of the form and quality of land, collection of soil and stones, land division, piling up of goods, etc. in the rearrangement zone, shall obtain permission from the head of the Si/Gun, etc. In this situation, even if the person who actually performed the project in the rearrangement zone before obtaining the project implementation authorization, the person who actually performed the project in the rearrangement zone is deemed to have no risk of deviating the legislative purpose of the special taxation.'

3. Conclusion

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