Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu 51453 (Law No. 18, 2015)

Where there is a justifiable ground for the suspension of construction of a building, the land annexed to the building shall be subject to special aggregate taxation.

"Justifiable reason for the suspension of construction" means not only the external reason for which a corporation cannot work in mind, such as the prohibition or restriction of construction by law, but also the internal reason for the corporation to inevitably suspend construction works despite its normal efforts and implementation, such as the prohibition or restriction of construction by law (the contents of the judgment)

Article 12(1) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act; Article 106(1)1 of the Local Tax Act; Articles 101(1) and 103(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

2015Nu63052 Gross income and revocation of disposition

AA Association

O Head of tax office

March 8, 2016

April 12, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2011 against the Plaintiff on August 14, 2013, the imposition of KRW 1,174,315,290 and special rural development tax of KRW 234,863,050, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 8, Chapter 14, the first instance judgment. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was the managing body of the instant construction by June 1, 201, which was the tax base date after the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the instant contract on July 1, 2010, and that the construction of the second building, which was simultaneously developed with the first building, was resumed on March 5, 201, before June 1, 201, which was the tax base date, was excluded from the aggregate aggregate aggregate. Since there was no legal and de facto obstacle to the resumption of the instant construction, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the suspension of construction of the first building for at least six months.

In full view of the evidence as mentioned above and evidence evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to sell all the land No. 1 and No. 2 in a lump sum; (b) sold the land No. 1 in BB with the OB’s approval; (c) the construction of this case was reported as the owner of the building; (d) the Plaintiff reached a final agreement at several times to settle the accounts for the construction of BB and BB construction, the owner of the building, and the funds invested in the construction of this case, for the purpose of changing the name of the owner of the building No. 1 after the instant sales contract and the cancellation of the contract; (c) the Plaintiff’s determination of the sale price of the land No. 1 in a series of sale negotiations with CCC consortium and DD, reflecting the development gains other than the land price, and the Plaintiff was in the position of the seller after the long-term negotiations on the land No. 1 and the Plaintiff did not have any other reason for delaying the sale price of the construction of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.