Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Joint-64913 (2017.06)

Cho Jae-2015-Seoul Government-1323 (23 March 2016)

Criteria for determining "a building, the construction of which has been interrupted for at least six months without good cause" excluded from special aggregate taxation;

Where there is a difference between the truster and the truster who is the subject of the project implementation as a result of the conclusion of the management-type land trust contract, whether there is a justifiable reason for the discontinuance of construction shall be taken into account all the circumstances of both the construction company and the trustee, as the truster, as the condition of the "land owner" on the side of the land owner.

Article 12 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2017Nu4868 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Property Tax, etc.

AA

BB Head of the Gu,CC Head of the tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap64913 Decided April 6, 2017

September 15, 2017

October 13, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The part exceeding 154,65,930 won of the disposition of imposition of property tax of 193,964,490 won by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City BB against the Plaintiff on September 18, 2014 shall be revoked in all the part exceeding 30,931,180 won of the disposition of imposition of local education tax of 38,792,890 won. The part exceeding 74,254,270 won of the disposition of imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of 653,623,290 won against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2014 by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City BB shall be revoked in all.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment are as follows. Therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ On 12 pages of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

【4) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s right to re-elect the instant construction work ought to be determined on the basis of the Plaintiff, the trustee, and that the Plaintiff’s right to re-elect the construction work is extremely exceptional, and that the instant construction work occurred due to external factors that the Plaintiff could not substantially control, namely, DD, the truster, and EE construction circumstances, and thus, justifiable grounds for the discontinuance of construction work are recognized. In other words, even if the Plaintiff’s right to re-elect the construction work is exceptionally acknowledged based on the Plaintiff, even if it is exceptionally acknowledged based on the trustee, it was incurred from January 9, 2014 when the EE construction was decided to commence the construction work from January 9, 2014, which was the property tax assessment basis date for property tax in 2014.

However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, if it is deemed difficult to complete construction works in the scheduled air due to the discontinuance of construction due to the failure of construction works, etc. (Article 16(1) of the instant special agreement), the Plaintiff may re-elect the construction works (Article 16(1) of the instant special agreement), and the EE construction, which is a contractor, was suspended from the construction works in the instant case on or around January 1, 2013, which was about one year before the commencement date of the decision to commence the construction works, and the KOSDAQ transaction was suspended on or around February 2013. In light of the above facts, in light of the above facts, it is reasonable to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that EE construction took over the status of D as of October 8, 2012 due to the failure of management of D due to the occurrence of the causes for the transfer of the project implementation right under the instant trust agreement, and received several recommendations for purchase for the sale of the instant project right from the next date, even if the construction has already been interrupted for six months or more without justifiable reasons.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.