It is reasonable to deem that acquisition of ownership following the exercise of a redemptive right is a transaction separate from the transfer of the land of this case.

It is reasonable to deem that acquisition of ownership following the exercise of a redemptive right is a transaction separate from the transfer of the land of this case.

Article 88 of the Income Tax Act

2015Gudan52510 Revocation of Disposition of Rejecting Capital Gains Tax

AAAAAAA subsidiary organization

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 4, 2015

August 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of KRW 0,000,000 for transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008 against the plaintiff on July 18, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 1975, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of a 00-0 00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2, but when the instant land was incorporated into a site for the establishment of a road around the Southern-si, m2,00 m2,00

B. On December 29, 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 0,000,000 to the Defendant for the transfer income tax of 2008 (hereinafter “transfer income tax of this case”).

C. Since then, when the instant land was excluded from the said project site, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014 by exercising a repurchase right under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) on May 29, 2014.

D. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the instant transfer income tax would be refunded to the Defendant. However, on July 18, 2014, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s re-acquisition of the instant land by exercising the right of repurchase was an acquisition of new land, which is different from the original transfer transaction, and thus, even if the instant land was repurchased, the transfer by expropriation of the original land is still effective, and thus the transfer income tax by expropriation of the original land cannot be refunded.”

E. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination against the instant disposition, but the said request on November 20, 2014.

The dismissal was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number);

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The right of repurchase is derived from the guarantee of property rights under the Constitution, and in light of the fundamental purpose of the Public Works Act, in a case where the original owner redeems the said land due to the acquisition by consultation or expropriation of the land under the Public Works Act, and the alteration of the public works, it is identical to the case where the sale contract is rescinded or cancelled and the substance thereof is the same, and thus, it is deemed that there was no transfer corresponding thereto, and thus, it accords with the principle of substantial taxation

B. Determination

A repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the Public Works Act is granted to a repurchase right holder when the land expropriated by the project operator becomes unnecessary. As a result, the repurchase right holder restores the ownership of the land already transferred through consultation or expropriated. However, in light of the fact that the exercise of the repurchase right is not always forced, acquisition of the ownership by exercise of the repurchase right shall be deemed a new sale between the repurchase right holder and the project operator by exercise of the preferential purchase right according to the right owned by the repurchase right holder, and it shall not be deemed a transfer through previous consultation or cancellation or cancellation of the expropriation. Therefore, the effect of change in the real right already held shall not be retroactively extinguished.

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff lost the ownership of the instant land by a consultation on the transfer of the instant land to △△ Corporation (the name of △△ Corporation at the time of redemption), which is the project implementer, but later, by clarifying the intention to repurchase the instant land in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Public Works Act, and settling the redemption price, the fact that the Plaintiff newly acquired the ownership of the instant land by settling the repurchase price. In applying the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the ownership following the exercise of the said repurchase right is a transaction separate from the transfer of

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.