Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap36323 ( October 27, 2010)

Seocho 209west 1844 (O6, 16, 2009)

One house for one household where the land annexed to another house is owned together;

Before the amendment of the Act May 27, 2009, if one house and land annexed to another house are owned together, it shall not be entitled to receive mutual aid benefits as one house owner in calculating the tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax as it falls under a multi-household house owner.

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

46 46 46 46 46 46 48

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the disposition of refusal to correct the reduction of the amount of KRW 5,579,880 among the gross real estate tax of KRW 9,299,814 (including the special rural development tax of KRW 1,549,969) for the plaintiff on January 8, 2009.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to "the reasons for the disposition" of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the members of the household can live an independent residential life in the same address for a long time, is unlawful, since the Civil Act treats land and its fixtures as separate real rights, the land owner cannot be deemed to own the land and its fixtures, and that the land owner owned the land and its building. The "one house for one household" in the Income Tax Act provides that one household, which is composed of the members of the family living together with the family living together with the same address, owns one house in the Republic of Korea. Thus, the "house" ultimately refers to holding all the land and its appurtenant land together with all or part of the building constructed on the premise that the members of the household can live an independent residential life for a long time. The plaintiff's wife, as the plaintiff's wife, transferred the share of the land in this case to YellowB and only owned the share of the land in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff owned the house any more.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) The meaning of "house" under the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act

Under the principle of no taxation without representation, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations should be interpreted as they are the language and text of the pertinent provisions, barring special circumstances. Since comprehensive real estate holding tax is designed to contribute to balanced local finance and sound development of the national economy by enhancing fairness in tax burden on possession of real estate and stabilizing real estate prices (Article 1 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act), barring special circumstances, in determining the meaning of housing, etc. provided for in the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, the Civil Act or the Income Tax Act shall not apply to any content concerning land or land, buildings on land, and one house for one household, etc., in consideration of the purpose and purpose of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, and shall be faithfully interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, unless there are other special circumstances.

Since Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides for the meaning of ‘house subject to taxation' which is the basis of the disposition of this case, the term “house” means the house under the provisions of subparagraph 3 of Article 180 of the Local Tax Act. Article 180 subparagraph 3 of the Local Tax Act provides for the term “house subject to property tax” means the house under the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Housing Act. Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Housing Act provides that the term “house” means the whole or part of the building with the structure where the members of household can carry on an independent residential life for a long time, and the land annexed thereto are classified into detached housing and collective housing. In conclusion, the meaning of “house” under the amended Local Tax Act means the building with the structure where the members of household can carry on an independent residential life for a long time, and the meaning of “building and land annexed to the house” under the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 7 of the amended Local Tax Act is not limited to the building under the provisions of Article 18 of the Local Tax Act.

(2) Determination on the instant case

The land in this case is located on the land owned by YellowA, which is a member of the plaintiff's household, and that the plaintiff owned the apartment house in this case separately from the land in this case. As seen earlier, the plaintiff becomes a person liable to pay property tax on the apartment house in this case as the owner of the apartment house in this case, while yellowA, who is a member of the plaintiff's wife, becomes a co-owner of the land in this case, the plaintiff is not liable to pay property tax on the house in this case. Thus, as the plaintiff does not fall under "if only one of the members of the household owns only one house which is subject to property tax on the house" as provided in Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, the plaintiff cannot receive deduction benefits as one house owner in calculating the taxation standard of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on the house in this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the disposition in this case is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.