Capital gains tax reduction or exemption for long-term rental houses

The reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on long-term rental houses shall apply to residents who start the lease prior to December 31, 200 and lease five or more rental houses for five or more years, and houses acquired after January 1, 201 shall not be included in the long-term rental houses.

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

1. The plaintiff's claims are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 18,649,160 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on January 20, 2009 and imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 33,359,510 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition, etc.;

A. On August 16, 199, the Plaintiff acquired the redevelopment apartment unit sales right that can sell the unit of ○○○○○○ apartment unit 1212, 106, 2204 (hereinafter “the first house”) and the redevelopment apartment unit sales right that can sell the unit of 101, 708 of the same apartment unit (hereinafter “the second house”), and thereafter, each of the above apartment units was redeveloped into the first and second houses. (B) around August 26, 199, the Plaintiff registered as a rental business operator of ○○○○○○○-gu, ○○○○-si as a rental house including the first and second houses in this case. The current status of the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the unit before December 31, 200, is as follows:

C. The current status of the housing which the Plaintiff recommended to have leased after January 1, 2001 is as shown below the Table 2.

D. The Plaintiff leased the instant Nos. 1 and 2, but transferred the instant house Nos. 1 and 2 on May 25, 2007, and on June 20, 2007, respectively. The Plaintiff thereafter asserted that the transfer of each of the instant houses Nos. 1 and 2 falls under Article 97 or 97-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9272, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and that the transfer income tax should be exempted on July 31, 2007, and each preliminary return was filed on August 3, 2007 with respect to the instant house No. 2.

"E. Accordingly, the defendant imposed capital gains tax of 18,649,160 on January 2009 (hereinafter "the first disposition of this case") and on March 1, 2009 (hereinafter "the second disposition of this case") 33,359,510 capital gains tax of 2007 in relation to the transfer of the second house of this case on the ground that each transfer of the first and second houses of this case does not constitute capital gains tax reduction or exemption under Article 97 or 97-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The plaintiff raised an objection against the first disposition of this case to ○○ Regional Tax Office on April 27, 2009, but was dismissed on July 10, 2009, but was dismissed on July 10, 2009.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 10, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5-10, Eul evidence 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

For the following reasons, the defendant's dismissal of the case is illegal.

(1) On or before December 31, 200, the Plaintiff acquired and leased the instant house and recorded it as a rental business operator. Among them, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house under subparagraph 3, excluding the instant house 1 and 2, on September 2, 2001; October 10, 2002; and April 18, 2004, respectively; however, following each transfer, the Plaintiff continued to acquire and lease other houses as shown in Table 2, and maintained the qualification of lease business operator for more than 5, and on May 25, 2007, transferred the instant house 1 and 2, on June 20, 207, to the effect that the instant house was leased for more than 5 years at each time of transfer; thus, even if the instant house 1 and 2, were leased for more than 5 years at each time, the Plaintiff was entitled to reduction and exemption from the tax office under Article 97 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act by visiting 30% or more at each time of lease.

(2) Each transfer of the instant Nos. 1 and 2 constitutes a case of transferring a house newly built on or before August 19, 1999 under Article 97-2(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which had not been occupied as of August 20, 199, after lease for five or more years, and thus, the transfer income tax should be exempted pursuant to Article 97-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The plaintiff's first proposal is replaced by the plaintiff's first proposal

According to Article 97(1)1 and (4) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act related to the instant case; Article 97(1), (5)1 and 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009); and Article 97(1), (5)1 and 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307, Feb. 4, 2009) provide that even in cases where the Plaintiff and the same housing rental business operator transfer a rental house, the amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted.

(1) The tax authority's interpretation of "No less than 10 years old and later than 5 years old and later than 10 years old and later than 5 years old and later 10 years old and later 5 years old and later than 10 years old and later 5 years old and later 10 years old and later 5 years old and later 10 years old and later 10 years old and later later than 5 years old and later, 10 years old and later 10 years old and later later than 10 years old and later 5 years old and later 10 years old and later, 5 years old and later than 10 years old and later than 10 years old and later, 50 years old and later than 10 years old and later than 10 years old and later.

Therefore, the plaintiff's first argument is without merit.

(2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

We examine whether each transfer of the first and second houses constitutes "special cases of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on newly-built rental houses under Article 97-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act".

According to the purport of subparagraph 4-8 of this case’s evidence No. 4-8, the housing of this case corresponds to each purchased rental house. According to the provisions of Article 97-2(1)2(a) and (b) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the Special Cases of Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on the purchased rental housing, if a house newly constructed on or after August 20, 199 or newly built on or before August 19, 199 as an apartment house under the Rental Housing Act which had not been occupied as of August 20, 199 among the purchased rental houses under the Rental Housing Act which had not been acquired on or after August 20, 199 (limited to the case where a sales contract was concluded and a down payment was made during the period from August 20, 199 to December 31, 201) and lease, the relevant house is exempted from the transfer income tax.

However, the fact that the Plaintiff acquired each right to sell housing Nos. 1 and 2 of this case for which the sales contract was concluded on August 16, 1999 and the down payment was paid on November 14, 1997, as seen earlier, is not "the case where the Plaintiff concludes a sales contract and pays the down payment during the period from August 20, 199 to December 31, 2001," and eventually, the transfer of housing Nos. 1 and 2 of this case is not subject to "Special Cases of Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for the Newly-Built Rental Houses of Article 97-2 of the former Act on Special Cases of Taxation". The second argument by the Plaintiff is without merit.

(3) Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an illegality regardless of the defendant's rejection of the case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for all reasons.