In calculating the tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax, liabilities secured by real estate shall not be deducted.

Since the Gross Real Estate Tax Act does not have a system that deducts the amount of secured obligation of real estate security right or the amount of obligation of return of security deposit of lease contract on such real estate in calculating the tax base and tax amount, it cannot be deemed unlawful because it did not deduct the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax belonging to the year 2006 and the year 2007 against the plaintiff on September 5, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 2007, the assessment basis date of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2006 and the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid the comprehensive real estate holding tax and special rural development tax as follows.

B. After that, on September 5, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the grounds that the comprehensive real estate holding tax violated the Constitution and the Rental Housing Act. However, on September 26, 2008, the Defendant rendered a disposition of refusal to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for rectification on the grounds that the report and payment of the comprehensive real estate holding tax enacted by the National Assembly in accordance with lawful procedures

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 30, 2008. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on February 11, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

(1) Notwithstanding the absence of a provision that applies retroactively to the Addenda of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act, it is illegal to impose comprehensive real estate holding tax after determining whether the Plaintiff constitutes a rental house excluded from the aggregate of the tax base based on the published price in 2005, which was registered as rental housing pursuant to the Rental Housing Act prior to the enforcement of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act.

(2) In calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, it is unreasonable to impose tax without deducting the obligation of lease deposit or the obligation of loan borrowed from the financial right as security on the real estate.

(3) Comprehensive real estate holding tax that cannot contribute to the legislative purpose of stabilizing the residential life of citizens should be integrated and operated as property tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to what contents of tax laws and regulations are to be determined by policy and technical judgment based on the accurate data on the actual state of national finance, social economy, national income, and people's lives, this may be deemed to be left to the policy and technical judgment based on the legislative formation discretion of the legislators. Therefore, the provision of taxation requirements in tax laws and tax exemption or tax exemption requirements, which are exceptional provisions therefor, belongs to the legislative discretion of the legislators, unless this provision is significantly unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du7265, May 29, 2001).

Article 3(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20210, Aug. 6, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20210, Jan. 1, 2008; amended by Act No. 8235, Jan. 11, 2007) provides that "a rental house leased before January 5, 2005, under the status of a rental business operator, which is excluded from the aggregate taxation standard pursuant to Article 8(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act, is difficult to be seen as being leased before January 5, 2005, with the view to ensuring balanced development of the real estate holding tax base, where the publicly announced price of the national housing is less than 30 million won, and where the leased house continues to be leased for five or more years, its legislative purpose is to exclude the comprehensive real estate holding tax from the total real estate holding tax base and to ensure balanced development of the real estate holding tax base after its implementation.

(2) The Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax is a tax imposed on a person holding a house and a real estate, such as a house and a land, which exceed a certain price as of June 1 of each year, which is the tax base under the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, and is, in principle, a kind of the property holding tax imposed by recognizing a taxable capacity as the ownership of a certain property. Therefore, the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act does not have a system that deducts the amount of secured liabilities of a security right established on a real estate or the amount of obligation to return a lease contract on such real estate in calculating the tax base and tax amount. Thus, it cannot

(3) The argument that the comprehensive real estate holding tax should be integrated into the property tax is possible to be adopted as a legislative theory. However, as long as such dissenting opinion is rejected and the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act was enacted, it cannot be viewed as the ground that the taxation conducted under the Act was unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.