Whether the transfer of apartment sale right can be seen as the transfer of the previous land and buildings

Since the above apartment sale right transferred before the public notice of sale can be seen as the land within the replotting district under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the transfer of the above apartment sale right shall apply to the case where the plaintiff, the owner of the previous land and building, transfers the land within the planned land for

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

1. On February 16, 1991, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 9,839,140 and its defense tax of KRW 1,967,820 against the Plaintiff on February 16, 1991.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑 제4,5,6호증, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 을 제2호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1981.11.경 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 198㎡ 의 11/60지분인 36.3㎡ 및 그 지상 기와블럭조 주택 건평 21.05㎡ 중 각 13/21지분(아래 이 사건 토지 및 건물)을 취득하여 그 곳에서 거주하여 오던 중 이 사건 토지 및 건물을 포함한 그 부근일대에 관하여 도시재개발법에 의한 전농 제3-1구역 주택개량 재개발사업시행인가 고시가 되자 원고는 이 사건 토지 및 건물을 위 재개발조합에 출자한 다음 그대가로 관리처분계획에 따라 1989.7.26. 재개발조합으로부터 금 60,298,660원 상당의 ㅇㅇ 1차 ㅇㅇ아파트 ㅇ동 ㅇ호 148.760㎡를 분양받은 후, 같은 해 6.26. 위 아파트분양권의 소외 김ㅇㅇ에게 양도한 사실, 이에 대하여 피고는 이를 부동산을 취득할 수 있는 권리인 아파트분양권의 양도로 보고, 소득세법제23조 제1항 제2호, 같은법 시행령제44조 제4항 제2호, 제115조 제1항 제5호, 같은법 시행규칙 제56조의 5 제10항,재산제세조사사무처리규정 제76조 단서 의 규정을 적용하여 기준시가에 의하여 양도차익을 계산하여 1991.2.16. 원고에 대하여 주문기재와 같은 양도소득세 및 그 방위세를 부과고지한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the tax disposition in this case is legitimate on the grounds of the above applicable provisions and disposition, according to the provisions of Article 49 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 62 of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the plaintiff's transfer of the above apartment sale right should be regarded as the transfer of the previous land and building. Accordingly, even though the transfer income tax amount should be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, the pertinent tax disposition in this case should be erroneous

Therefore, the former part of Article 49 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that a person who purchases a building site or constructed facility in accordance with the management and disposal plan publicly notified under Article 41 (5) shall acquire ownership of the building site or constructed facilities on the day following the public notice of the sale in lots under Article 48 (5). The former part of Article 48 (2) provides that a building site or constructed facility acquired under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be deemed a substitute land under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act. The former part of Article 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act provides that where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced, the substitute land in the land substitution plan shall be deemed to be the previous land from the day following the public notice of the land substitution disposition until the day following the public notice of the sale in lots is made, even if the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the above apartment house until the day following the public notice of the sale in lots, the above apartment sale right can be deemed to be land in the land within the land substitution zone under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, so the transfer gains tax shall be calculated under Article 4 (16) of the Income Tax Act.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation because the defendant's taxation disposition of this case was unlawful is justified.

Judgment of December 16, 1992 No. 5