Where the owners of buildings and land annexed thereto are different, determination of housing subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax;

If the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different, the property tax shall be paid in accordance with the method prescribed by the Local Tax Act. Thus, even if the building owner and its appurtenant land subject to the property tax are different, the land annexed to the building subject to the property tax should be considered as a separate house in determining the "one house for one household" under the Act.

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

Article 2 (Definitions of Revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act)

Article 7 (Taxpayer of Revised Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed;

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of rejection of the reduction of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 23, 2009 (the purport of the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition of revocation of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2008 claimed by the Plaintiff on the date of pleading is clear that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition of revocation

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2008년도 귀속 종합부동산세 과세기준일인 2008. 6. 1. 현재, 서울 강남구 ☆☆동 654 외 1필지 ◆◆아파트 제203통 제504호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)를, 원고의 처 신○○은 김포시 ★★동 303-1 임야 7,726㎡중 1/10 지분(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)을 각 소유하고 있고, 이 사건 토지 위에는 신상훈 소유의 시멘트블럭조 사벤트기와 및 스레트지붕 단층 주택이었다.

B. On November 20, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the instant apartment on the ground that the publicly announced price of the instant apartment exceeds the standard amount of taxation on the housing under the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Gross Real Estate Tax Act”), respectively, KRW 10,076,295 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and KRW 2,015,259 of the special rural development tax, and the Plaintiff paid it on December 8, 2008.

C. The defendant, ex officio on January 23, 2009, the Revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act (Law No. 7923, Dec. 26, 2008)

In accordance with Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the 2008 Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act"), the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff shall be reduced to KRW 8,726,295, and the special rural development tax for the plaintiff shall be reduced to KRW 1,745,259, respectively, and the difference between the already paid amount and the already paid amount shall be deducted to KRW 1,625,980.

D. The plaintiff filed an objection against the defendant on February 5, 2009, and the plaintiff constitutes one house for one household under Article 8(1) of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act. Thus, the defendant filed a request for a reduction of the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2008 to the plaintiff by applying a long-term holder under Article 8(6) and (7) of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act and a tax credit for the aged to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant rejected the request for reduction of the amount of the above amount of reduction by dismissing the plaintiff's request on February 23, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of refusal").

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant land is forest land only and cannot be a house, the Plaintiff is subject to the long-term holder and the aged tax credit under Article 8(6) and (7) of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act as it falls under one house owner for one household under the same Act. Nevertheless, the instant rejection disposition taken by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a single house owner for one household, and thus, should be revoked.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Determination

In full view of Article 2 subparag. 3 and 5 of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act, Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21193, Dec. 26, 2008); Articles 180 subparag. 3, 181, 183(1), and 189(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Act, “one house for one household” stipulated in the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act refers to “one house which is subject to property tax for one house.” The term “one house” means “one house which is subject to property tax for one house among members of a household.” The term “one house” means all or part of the building constructed in which one can carry on a residential life and its appurtenant land.” However, if the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different, all of the building and its appurtenant land are subject to property tax for one house separately determined by the law, and thus, the term “one house subject to property tax for one house” should be separately paid.

According to the above recognition theory, since the land of this case is owned by the new decoration and decoration owned by the plaintiff's wife, who is the plaintiff's member of the household, it constitutes "one house for one household" as a subject of property tax, and it is evident that the plaintiff has a separate house.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as one house owner for one household as stipulated in Article 8 (1) of the revised Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition on the ground that he is a single house owner is dismissed as there is no ground.