Suwon District Court 2009Guhap630 (No. 12, 2010)

early 2009 Heavy0918 (2009.04.07)

Calculation of the acquisition value of sales rights of migrants housing sites;

The ownership of a re-resident's housing site cannot be deemed as having been granted as a part of compensation for living, and thus the acquisition value is not paid, and even if the transferee concludes a sales contract for a specific housing site based on such right and pays the price, such price is not included in the acquisition value unless there are special circumstances

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

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the part exceeding 188,54,850 won in the imposition of capital gains tax of 198,54,850 won belonging to the year 207 against the plaintiff Ba on January 1, 2009, and confirmed that the part exceeding 214,283,480 won in the imposition of capital gains tax of 224,283,480 won belonging to the plaintiff Ba on April 1, 2009 is null and void.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the part of 1.B.(3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

(3) On November 24, 2004, when the Plaintiff KimB did not confirm and determine as a person subject to relocation measures, or did not purchase a resettled housing site, the Plaintiff transferred the right to sell the housing site in KRW 345,00,000 toCC on November 24, 2004. On June 21, 2007, the Plaintiff received additional KRW 48,000,000,000, and reported and paid KRW 39,000,000,000, capital gains tax of KRW 119,000,000 with the acquisition value of the right to sell the housing site in the instant case as the preliminary return of capital gains tax.

2. Whether a disposition is lawful

The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following judgments to “the legitimacy of the 2.th disposition” of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

【Judgment on the Claim for Acquisition of Sale of Unsettled Housing Site in Kind】

"The plaintiff acquired the right to sell the housing site of this case as a substitute payment for intangible damages due to the relocation of the migrants, so its acquisition value does not exist because it is deducted from the transfer value of the right to sell the housing site, but the right to sell the housing site of the migrants acquired by the plaintiffs is granted as a part of compensation for living, and its acquisition value cannot be considered to have been paid. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit."

[Judgment on the deduction of necessary expenses for acquisition value in calculating gains from transfer]

"The defendant calculated the transfer income tax for the plaintiff 00,000 won which is the sale price of 451,820,000 won shall be deducted from the transfer price in calculating the transfer price for the plaintiff 00, but the above sale price shall be included in the transfer price item (the transfer price was increased by the above sale price that the plaintiff 00,000 won was paid by the transferee) and there is no difference between the transfer price and the acquisition price of 0 won instead of including the sale price in the transfer price. However, while the defendant deducts the transfer price of 45,192,00 won paid by the plaintiff 0,000 won from the transfer price, the 39,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff 10,000 won shall not be deducted from the transfer price. However, in the case of the plaintiff 00,000 won, the above sale price was paid by the transfer price before the transfer of the sale price to the plaintiff 00,000 won, and it cannot be considered to all the plaintiffs.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.