The criteria for imposing capital gains tax shall be the current status as of the transfer date.

Determination of idle land of land excess profit tax deductible from capital gains tax shall comply with the standard as of the date of transfer.

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

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition; and

갑 제 1호증, 갑 제2호증의 1, 2, 갑 제 3, 5호증, 을 제1호증의 1, 2, 3 의 각 기재와 증인 김ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고와 소외 김ㅇㅇ이 1977.1.1. 공동으로 취득했던 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 131의 7 대지 1130.2 평방미터(위 대지중 원고의 지분인 2분의 1을 이하에서는 이 사건 토지라고 한다)를 1990.3.27. 소외 주식회사 ㅇㅇ주택에게 국민주택의 건설용지로 사용하기로 하고 대금 463,000,000원으로 정하여 매도하고, 1990.4.30. (계약상 잔금지급기일은 같은해 4.27.이었다) 그 매매잔대금을 지급받은 사실, 원고는 소득세법에 의한 자산양도차익예정신고 및 자진납부를 함에 있어서 소외 회사가 주택건설촉진법 제6조의 규정에 의하여 등록한 주택건설사업자이었으므로 조세감면규제법(1990.12.31. 법률 제4285호로 개정되기 전의 것. 이하 구 조세감면규제법이라고만 한다) 제62조 제1항에 규정에 의한 감면세액을 차감한 나머지 금30,213,017원을 자진납부하였고 아울러 이 사건 토지의 매수자인 위 ㅇㅇ주택도 같은조 제4항의 규정에 의거하여 피고에게 양도소득세 감면신청을 한 사실, 피고는 이 사건 토지가 양도당시 토지초과이득세법상의 유휴토지에 해당한다고 보아 구 조세감면규제법 제66조의3, 같은법시행규칙(1991.3.13. 재무부령 제 1850호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 구 조세감면규제법 시행규칙이라고만 한다) 제20조의6의 각 규정에 의하여 양도소득세 감면을 배제하기로 결정하고 소득세법 등 관계법령에 따라 양도소득세액을 산출한 다음 1992.6.16. 자로 원고에게 청구취지 기재의 양도소득세를 부과고지(이하 이 사건 과세처분이라고 한다)한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없다.

2. The legality of disposition.

Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which was enacted and promulgated on April 10, 1990, shall not apply to the transfer of the above land before the enforcement date, because the above provisions of Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, provides that the above provisions of Article 66-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Tax Reduction and Exemption shall apply to the above excess land which is subject to tax reduction and exemption, and the above provisions of Article 16-1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Tax Reduction and Exemption, which are not applicable to the above excess land, shall be deemed to be the date of liquidation as of March 13, 1991, because the above provisions of Article 16-1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Tax Reduction and Exemption, which is the date of the acquisition of the above land, are not applicable to the above excess land which is subject to tax reduction and exemption, and the above provisions of Article 66-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless, the issue of whether the land in question is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 3(2) and Article 6 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act shall be based on the current status on December 31, 192, which is the expiration date of the taxable period, and the determination of whether the land is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall be based on the current status of the taxation period. Notwithstanding the absence of delegation by the rule to apply different standards from the provisions of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Rule shall be based on the current status of the land excess profit tax which is subject to the land excess profit tax as of the date of transfer, and Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be based on whether the land in question falls under the current status of the land excess profit tax under the provisions of the former Restriction of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and the provisions of Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall be interpreted as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case that the defendant argues that the disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.