Whether the Plaintiff can be deemed as one house for one household under the Gross Real Estate Tax Act if his spouse owns land annexed to another house.

It is reasonable to view that Article 8(4) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act is "one person who owns a house deemed "one person who owns one house for one household" and land annexed to another house also is "one person liable for tax payment". Therefore, if a part of members of the household owns land annexed to another house, it shall not be deemed "one house for one household under the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act."

Article 8 (4) of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2017Guhap69076 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax

IsaA

Head of Seocho Tax Office

on October 23, 2018

on October 13, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on 201 X. 1 X. 1 X., which was imposed by the Plaintiff, and KRW 000 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax on 201 X.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As of June 1, 201, the assessment basis date of comprehensive real estate holding tax, the Plaintiff owned, as OOOO-gu OOO-dong 21,000 00 OOOO-dong (hereinafter “OO-dong,” and KimB, the spouse of the Plaintiff, OO-dong O-dong 00 00 m200 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The instant land is the land annexed to another house owned by a third party.

B. On January 1, 201 X., the Defendant determined and notified 000 won of the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 201 X and the special rural development tax for rural development tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) calculated by deducting KRW 000,000,000,000, which is the publicly notified price of the instant house, from KRW 600,000,000,000,000, which is the fair market value ratio.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 1, 201 X., and the Tax Tribunal dismissed on May 201 X.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number in the case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 8 (4) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") stipulates that if a person owns a house and another house owned by another person together, the person shall be deemed as one house per household.

In this regard, the above provision was prepared to resolve the uncertainty that occurred because there is no clear provision as to whether a household member owns a house and a land annexed to a house different from the existing one, and to ease the tax burden in such case. The concept of a single household owner is determined by the unit of one household. Thus, inasmuch as the Plaintiff owned the instant land and his spouse owned the land of this case, which is the land annexed to the instant house owned by others, the Plaintiff should be deemed as a single house owner for one household as long as the Plaintiff owned the instant land and his spouse owned all the instant land. Therefore, in the case of a single house owner for one household, the instant disposition imposing comprehensive real estate holding tax without applying the provision on reduction and exemption under Article 8(1) of the Act, which provided that the Defendant additionally deducts KRW 300 million from the publicly notified price of the relevant house

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 7(1) of the Act provides that a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax shall be a person who is liable to pay property tax on housing as of the date of taxation, and Article 8(1) provides that the aggregate amount of published prices of housing subject to property tax in Korea exceeds 600 million won, and Article 8(1) provides that the tax base of comprehensive real estate holding tax on housing shall be the amount obtained by subtracting 600 million won from the aggregate amount of published prices of housing by taxpayer by the fair market price ratio, but in cases of one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree, in which one of members of a household owns the relevant house independently as of the date of taxation, the amount obtained by subtracting 90 million won from such aggregate amount by the fair market price ratio. Accordingly, Article 2-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that only one house owner among members of a household owns only one house subject to property tax on housing, and only one house owner of another house and land annexed to the relevant house (excluding cases where another house owner owns land annexed to the house) shall be excluded.

2) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements of non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption, and thus expanding the requirements of non-taxation and tax exemption as favorable to

tin or analogical interpretation causes a result contrary to the principle of tax equity, which is the basic ideology of the tax law, and thus, it is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). In light of the following circumstances, where the Plaintiff owned the instant house and his spouse owned the instant land, it cannot be deemed as a “one house owner per one household” under Article 8(4) and (1) of the Act, and on the same premise, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

A) The Act adopts the method of cumulative taxation by person who calculates the global income tax base by aggregating the publicly announced prices of housing owned by each person liable to pay property tax, and Article 8(1) of the Act permits an additional deduction of KRW 300 million in the case of "one house owner by one household". In this case, "one house owner by one household" means a case where only one house among members of a household as of the tax base date owns a house which is subject to property tax on housing, i.e., a person liable to pay comprehensive real estate tax, owns only one house, and another member of a household to which he/she belongs does not own a house which is subject to property tax on housing. Article 8(4) of the Act provides that "in applying Article 8(1) of the Act, one house owner by one household shall be deemed as one house owner when he/she owns a house which is different from that of a house," and it is reasonable to view "one house owner by one household and another person liable to pay tax" as one house owner.

B) According to Articles 2 subparag. 3 and 5 of the Act, Articles 104 subparag. 3, 105, and 107(1)2 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 14344, Dec. 2, 2016), “house which is subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax” means “all or part of a building with a structure where members of a household can carry on an independent residential life for a long time,” which is a property tax separate from the property tax on the general land and building.” If the owners of a building and appurtenant land of a house subject to property tax are different, each owner is liable to pay property tax in proportion to the standard market value of the building and appurtenant land. Therefore, if the owners of a building and appurtenant land of a house subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax are different from those of a household subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax, the owner of another house also owns the land subject to comprehensive real estate holding tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201208Du3161.

C) As the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act was amended by Act No. 9710 on May 27, 2009, Article 8(4) was newly established. The reason why Article 8(4) was newly established is as follows: (a) where a person who owns one house and another house together does not constitute one house for one household under the Act; and (b) was excluded from the subject of long-term possession and tax credit for the aged; (c) where a person owns only another house in order to alleviate his/her burden of comprehensive real estate holding tax, he/she is excluded from the calculation of the number of houses; and (d) the former Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9710 on May 27, 2009), Article 9(6) and (7) of the same Act provides that the amount of tax credit calculated by multiplying the amount of tax credit for one house held by the person who owns the relevant house for five years or more as of the base date of taxation by the amount of tax credit calculated by multiplying the amount of tax credit for the relevant house by the amount of tax credit calculated by 4(3).

D) The Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7836 of Dec. 31, 2005) which provides for the aggregate taxation method of comprehensive real estate holding tax is unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2006HunBa12, 2007HunBa71,71, 88, 94, 2008HunBa3, 62, 208HunBa12, 208HunBa12, Nov. 26, 2008) was unconstitutional (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2006HunBa12, 2007HunBa71, 84, 2008; 2008HunBaGa12, Jan. 26, 2008). If a taxpayer newly established by Act No. 9273, Dec. 16, 2008 owns one house and another household member owns another house, it shall be regarded as 1600 million won where it can be interpreted as 1 billion won.

E) In general, in the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act that adopts a comprehensive taxation method by person, in cases where all members of a household own two or more houses, the amount of deduction (60 million won per person) and the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax for all members of a household, which is unfavorable to the tax rate, would increase in the burden of all members of a household. Article 8(4) of the Act provides special benefits only in cases where a taxpayer owns one house and land annexed to another house and another house, and the other members of a household do not own a house. Thus, in cases where the first and second members of a household own a house by dividing the land annexed to one house and another house and do not accord such benefits, it cannot be deemed unreasonable discrimination on the ground that they did not accord such benefits.

F) If a taxpayer owns one house and another household member owns land annexed to another household, the taxpayer himself/herself may not be deemed as one house for one household, and thus, is subject to an additional reduction of KRW 300 million by owning the land annexed to another house, and thus, may be subject to more taxation than the case subject to an additional reduction of KRW 300 million. However, Article 8(4) of the Act, which is a special provision on

The result is only the result that is not a case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.