The time of acquisition of transferred assets shall be deemed the date of liquidation of the price.

The plaintiff's assertion that the time of the sale of apartment lots should be considered to be the time of acquisition is only applicable to the case where the person who entered into the sale contract of real estate transfers the right to the contract (so-called the resale of the sale right), and it is not applicable to the case where the plaintiff acquired the ownership of apartment but transfers it

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 3,022,90 for special rural development tax against the Plaintiff on April 16, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 3, 2002, the Plaintiff, a newly built apartment, sold ○○○○dong, 201do 1206 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) on July 3, 2002, and resided in the remaining two years on November 29, 2004 after full payment of the balance and moving in the remaining two years, and transferred it to other on December 22, 2006.

B. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff reported that capital gains tax was reduced by 100% when filing a tax base return on capital gains at the actual transaction price of KRW 133 million and transfer value of KRW 214 million, and that special rural development tax was not reported and paid.

C. The Defendant deemed that the apartment house of this case is a newly-built house under Article 99-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which has been transferred within five years, and thus, constitutes a case where the transfer income tax has been reduced or exempted in full. On April 16, 2007, the Defendant imposed 3,022,990 won, calculated by applying 20/100 to the transfer income tax amount reduced or exempted under Article 3 subparagraph 1 and Article 5(1) of the former Act on Special Rural Development (amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same) as a special rural development tax (hereinafter the “disposition of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 2, and 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If a person who entered into a contract for the sale of real estate transfers all rights related to the contract concerned, the time of acquisition of the right to purchase the real estate concerned is the day on which the right to purchase the real estate is finalized (the winning day) and the time of acquisition of the apartment in this case is the day of July 3, 2002. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s apartment holding period in this case is not subject to a special rural development tax since it falls under the case where the transfer income tax is not imposed under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act for not less than three years. Nevertheless, the disposition in this case

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

Article 98 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

According to Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20628, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same) as to whether the Plaintiff’s income from the transfer of the instant apartment house constitutes a non-taxable transfer income under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act, where one household owns one house in the country on the transfer date, and where it has three years or more of the retention period of the relevant house, the transfer income tax is not imposed on the income from the transfer of the relevant house.

The plaintiff asserts that the period of possession until the time of transfer exceeds three years since the time of acquisition of apartment in this case, which is the date of sale contract, the time of acquisition of apartment in this case. However, Article 154 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the calculation of the period of possession under paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with Article 95 (4) of the Act", Article 95 (4) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the period of possession of the asset shall be the date of acquisition of the asset in this case and the date of transfer", Article 98 of the Income Tax Act provides that "the time of acquisition and transfer shall be determined by the Presidential Decree", and Article 162 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the time of acquisition and transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the asset in this case", so the plaintiff's acquisition of apartment in this case is November 29,

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s holding period of the instant apartment falls short of three years from November 29, 2004 to December 22, 2006, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion that the time of the sale of apartment lots should be the time of acquisition is only applicable to the case where the person who entered into the sale contract of real estate transfers the right to the contract (so-called "resale of the sale right") and does not apply to the case where the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the apartment and transfers it

Therefore, the disposition of this case where the Plaintiff imposed special rural development tax on the basis of the transfer income tax that is reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Rural Development is lawful, without falling under non-taxable income under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.