Supreme Court Decision 2014Du35126 (Law No. 16, 2014)

early 2012west 4569 ( December 26, 2012)

The subject of special taxation under Article 99 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall, in principle, be a resident directly acquired from a housing constructor.

The subject of special taxation under Article 99 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a resident who has acquired a newly-built house directly from a housing constructor, and the "acquisition date" under the "transfer income accrued for five years from the date of acquisition of a newly-built house" which is deducted from a income amount subject to capital gains tax means the date a resident acquires a newly-built house directly

Article 99 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Nu51212 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

KimA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du35126 Decided May 16, 2014

August 28, 2014

September 25, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On July 19, 2012, the disposition rejecting to correct the capital gains tax issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on July 19, 2012 was revoked (the plaintiff stated in the complaint that the date of the above disposition was July 23, 2012, but it appears to be erroneous in the records.

C. (See Evidence A)

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is "1. The reasons for the disposition" from 2. The legality of the disposition, and the plaintiff's state.

(b) Each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment of the court of first instance), among the grounds for the relevant Act and subordinate statutes;

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the first to third, fourth, fifth to sixth). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Details of the relevant provisions

Article 99 (1) 2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002; hereinafter the same) (hereinafter referred to as "the legal provision of this case") where a resident first concludes a sales contract with a housing developer within the newly-built house acquisition period (from May 22, 1998 to December 31, 1999 in the case of national housing), and dies after five years from the date of acquisition, the "transfer income accrued for five years from the date of acquisition of the newly-built house, which is stipulated to be deducted from the income amount subject to transfer income tax under the provision of this case, is unlikely to be included in the transfer income amount of an heir.

In light of these points, even if the plaintiff's above assertion and the circumstances alleged in the trial after the plaintiff's remand are considered, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's heir of newly-built house, like the plaintiff, is not subject to the special taxation provided for in the provisions of this case. This is the same even if the heir is the deceased's spouse (On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the grounds of Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13088 Decided May 16, 2014 at the trial after the remand, but the above decision 201Du13088 Decided 201Du1308

A wife who succeeds to the right to sell a newly-built house from the husband who entered into the contract and died after paying the down payment shall pay the remainder and acquire the newly-built house, and the case is not the same as the case in which the plaintiff acquired the newly-built house by inheritance of the house itself).

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise of the foregoing different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked as per Disposition.