Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-3686 ( October 29, 2015)

Whether the income from the issue can be taxed as other income in consideration of the cost of establishing legal superficies

The essence of a claim filed by a landowner against a building owner based on statutory superficies is the private cost for his/her own land, and it is difficult to regard it as non-taxable income, other than other income, it is reasonable to view that the land rent for statutory superficies is also included in other income.

Article 21 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu36203. Detailed statement of global income and revocation of disposition

AA

ㅇㅇ세무서장

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap3686 decided January 29, 2015

July 8, 2015

August 19, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s global income tax on April 5, 2013 that reverts to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2013.

The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court of first instance is identical to that for the court of first instance except for the partial contents of the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

[Supplementary Use]

In the second place, "(s)" was added to "(s) the defendant in the above appellate case who participated in the agreement of this case among the defendant in the above appellate case is deemed to have been adjusted."

○ Parts 7, 15 to 8, 6 are as follows.

On the other hand, the provisions of statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act are compulsory provisions compelling the establishment of superficies according to the purpose of the public interest to seek the coordination between the mortgage and the right to use the building.

The establishment of superficies can not be excluded by mutual agreement. The right to collateral security in the name of BB and CCC on December 18, 1989 should have already been terminated and cancelled, but only the right to collateral security should be effective only with the utilization agreement. Thus, it should be determined at the time of the utilization agreement as of December 18, 1989 at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of AAB and BB, as well as at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the building as of December 18, 1989, in view of the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of the building as of December 18, 198.

Ultimately, the first right to collateral security, which serves as a standard for determining the establishment of legal superficies on the land of this case, is substantially a right to collateral security in the name of DD and EE on March 5, 1990, and the construction was carried out as of March 3, 190 to the extent that the size, type, etc. of the building of this case, which was newly constructed on the land of this case, could have been recognized externally. After the completion of the construction of this case, the ownership transfer registration was completed for each subparagraph of the building of this case after the registration of ownership was completed in the name of the buyer's council or Kim Ho-ho, and the land of this case and the building of this case became different owners by acquiring ownership of the land of this case after the successful bid for the land of this case and the purchase of ownership of the land of this case was completed in full. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the occupants of this case acquired legal superficies or the right to claim for the establishment of legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act on the land of this case for ownership of each unit is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.