Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan1989 ( November 18, 2008)

Whether it constitutes two houses for one household temporarily due to reconstruction

Where two houses owners of one household reconstruct one of them, a new house which is completed after its removal shall be considered as an extension of the existing house, and the time of acquisition of a newly-built house shall become the acquisition date of the existing house before its new construction.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to correct the transfer income tax of 16,849,670 won to the plaintiff on November 3, 2006 shall be revoked.

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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that, except for the addition of judgment as follows, the reasoning for this case is the same as the entry of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that applying the revised rule to regard the re-built house as the "extension of the existing house at the time of completion" as the previous rule, which states that the re-built house shall be deemed a new house to be acquired at the time of completion, has been implemented over a period of five years since the implementation of the housing redevelopment project system, and it has been settled in the practices of national tax administration. As such, the plaintiff trusted it and acquired the instant re-built house under its own name, which was a multi-household house, which was a multi-household house under the redevelopment project progress, before the amendment of the above rule, is against the principle of trust protection.

However, in cases of re-construction of existing houses, if the period for recognizing temporary non-taxation of two houses from the time of completion of construction of new houses is calculated, if the condition of two houses for one household is substantially maintained for a long time, it would result in non-taxation, and thus, the established rules are amended as above. The administrative rules themselves do not constitute a public opinion expression by the tax authorities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du1652, Feb. 8, 2002). It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s trust in the continuation of the established rules prior to the amendment is more worthy of protection than the public interest demand for the application of the above amended rules. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.