Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-637 ( April 14, 2017)

Cho Jae-2016-west-785 (Law No. 17, 2016)

Land annexed to a house is included in a house subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax.

Land annexed to housing is included in housing subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax regardless of ownership of housing buildings, so long as the owner of land annexed to housing does not correspond to the owner of the housing, excluding the relevant land.

Articles 2 and 8 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act

2017Nu4830 Revocation of the disposition of revocation of comprehensive real estate holding tax

○ Kim

BUBE

September 13, 2017

November 1, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the imposition of the imposition of the gross real estate tax Xx won and the imposition of the special rural development tax of 000 won for the plaintiff on November 25, 2015, which reverts to the plaintiff in 2015.

.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court has repeated the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article

The term “211.12 square meters” in the 2nd place of the 5th place of 2,11.49 square meters, and the term “0.5 square meters” in the 2nd place of 5th place of 2,11.49 square meters, shall be deemed as “2.49 square meters”, and the term “43.8 square meters in 43.8 square meters in 0.2 square meters” respectively

○ The phrase “ November 15, 2015.15” in Part 8 of the second page shall be read as “ November 25, 2015.”, and the phrase “xx won” in Part 10 shall be read as “00 won”.

○ The fourth page 10 referred to as “see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du27896, Feb. 28, 2013”.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the Gross Real Estate Tax Act separately provides for the comprehensive real estate holding tax on land in addition to the comprehensive real estate holding tax on housing. If only the land annexed to the housing is owned, the publicly notified price of the land should be included in the total amount of the publicly notified price of the land, and it is unreasonable to impose the comprehensive real estate holding tax on housing by including it

Article 7 (1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act provides that a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house shall be a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house as of the base date of taxation; Article 12 (1) provides that a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on land shall be a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on land as of the base date of taxation; Article 104 of the Local Tax Act provides that a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on land shall be a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax, and Article 104 of the Local Tax Act provides that a land and a house are separate from a building and a house shall be excluded from the scope of land and a building, and Article 105 provides that a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house shall be a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house, not a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house, and as a result, the above assertion by the plaintiff of comprehensive real estate holding tax on a different premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.