The initial disposition of capital gains from the transfer of ownership of a housing site for migrants is legitimate.

The time of acquisition of the right to purchase a housing site for relocation measures is the date of confirmation of the person subject to relocation measures, and the original disposition against which the transfer income tax was imposed is not considered to deviate from discretion against the tax fairness.

Article 162 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the time of transfer or acquisition)

○○ District Court-2015-Gu Group-100435 ( November 27, 2015)

○ ○

○○ Head of tax office

November 13, 2015

November 27, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of ○○○○○○○○.○○○○○○○○○. The imposition of ○○○ on the Plaintiff shall be revoked by the Defendant of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The head of the ○○○○○○ and the head of the ○○○○○○○○○ was publicly announced on November 1, 1999 for the public inspection of the designation of the planned housing site development area. The planned housing site development area was designated on January 5, 2001 and designated as the implementer of the housing site development project. The announcement date of approval of the housing site development plan is December 16, 2003.

B. On April 24, 2008, the ○○ Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation selected the Plaintiff as a person eligible for the supply of a housing site for relocation measures. On April 29, 2008, the Plaintiff sent a written notice of selection to the Plaintiff. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the sale of a housing site for relocation measures with the Plaintiff at KRW 00,000.

C. Meanwhile, on July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with ○○ on July 25, 2005 under which the right to sell a housing site for relocation measures was transferred to KRW 160 million on the date of the payment, July 25, 2005 on the remainder of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won after the date of payment, and received the down payment from ○ on the same day.

D. On June 1, 2009, in the case of ○○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the adjustment was made to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 00,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time, and around that time, the Plaintiff received payment from ○○○○○○○○○○○○ around that time. On November 12, 2009, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The Plaintiff, on May 31, 201, entered the acquisition value of the right to sell the housing site for relocation measures, KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the acquisition value of KRW 20,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 3, 4, 6 through 8, and 11, fact inquiry results of the court's fact inquiry about ○○ Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the instant disposition is unlawful.

1) The date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s right to sell a housing site for relocation measures is November 26, 1999 or the date of public notice of approval of the housing site development plan (i.e., the date of public notice of project approval) at the latest. The Plaintiff’s retention period is between one year and two years.

2) The Plaintiff paid ○○○○○ Urban Development Corporation on June 8, 2009, and thus, it should be deducted as necessary expenses (it is alleged that the Plaintiff did not deduct the already paid tax amount. However, the instant disposition does not include the already paid tax amount in the remainder remaining after deducting the already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount. 3) The Plaintiff received most of the sales amount from ○○○ on July 25, 2005, the transfer date of the housing site for relocation measures is July 25, 2005. The filing deadline of the tax base return was the filing deadline of the tax base return. Since the Plaintiff did not commit fraud or other unlawful acts, the five-year exclusion period was applied to the taxation disposition. The Plaintiff paid ○○○○○○, but the neighboring land residents did not report the transfer income tax base itself or paid the tax amount less than one million won in violation of the relevant statutes.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009) and Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010), a person who first is granted a right to purchase a housing site for relocation measures is entitled to acquire the right at the time of confirmation and determination of the person subject to relocation measures (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1707, Sept. 6, 1996), and Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Apr. 24, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20150, Jun. 1, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 220010, Jan. 16, 2015>

Only because the Plaintiff asserts, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have deviates from discretion against the principle of fair taxation.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.