logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1992. 9. 14. 선고 92누8439 판결
[양도소득세등부과처분취소][공1992.11.1.(931),2923]
Main Issues

The case holding that the transfer of a tenement house transferred by a person who has been leased for a long time since it was newly built does not constitute a transfer of one house for one household subject to non-taxation under the Income Tax Act.

Summary of Judgment

The case holding that the transfer does not constitute the transfer of one house for one household subject to non-taxation under the Income Tax Act since the house leased for a long time after completing the registration of ownership transfer under its name because it was intended to newly construct a tenement house and sell it in lots, and since it is a house subject to taxation of capital gains tax, its transfer does not fall under the transfer of

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu14552 delivered on April 29, 1992

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff newly built 24 households' apartment houses together with the non-party on December 28, 1979, sold 8 households from February 1980 to May 1982, and the remaining 16 households completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the apartment houses of this case corresponding to the plaintiff's share because they did not sell them in the name of the plaintiff, and then leased them to other persons until now. The court below determined that the apartment houses of this case leased for a long time after the new construction cannot be deemed as inventory goods of the housing sales business, and since they constitute the housing subject to taxation of capital gains tax, the transfer of the plaintiff's house of this case does not constitute the transfer of one house for one household subject to non-taxation under the Income Tax Act.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or inconsistent reasoning as pointed out in the arguments. There is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow