In the case of transferring the land subject to a disposition to designate a land as a planned land substitution, the method of calculating the transfer price to calculate the tax amount.

In imposing the speculative suppression tax on a person who has transferred a parcel of land subject to the designation of a land scheduled for replotting, the transfer price shall be calculated on the basis of the land reduced by replotting in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation.

Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation (Abolition) and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate

Supreme Court Decision 72Nu136 delivered on September 26, 1972

Plaintiff

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

The disposition of imposition of KRW 756,097, which the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff as of January 30, 1971, is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

As of January 30, 1971, the Defendant: (a) recognized that the above-mentioned land was sold to the Plaintiff; (b) had no dispute between the parties as to the imposition of KRW 756,097,00 from time to time in the year 1971; (c) as to the Plaintiff’s disposal of KRW 196,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

Therefore, I first examine whether to impose tax on transfer gains by transferring the land which is subject to the designation disposition of reserved land such as this case.

Article 6 subparagraph 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate (Act No. 1972 of Nov. 29, 1967) which the Plaintiff is subject to taxation provides that "land on which the land category and its lot number are changed due to replotting in the implementation of an urban planning project" shall be "land on which no land is subject to taxation," and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 3324 of Dec. 30, 1967) provides that "after the completion of the project, the implementer shall mean land owner or interested person, which is replaced by another land, which is changed by the previous land, in the case where the land category and its lot number are different from those of the previous land (including reserved land) due to the implementation of a land readjustment project under the Urban Planning Act, such land shall not be subject to taxation on gains from the transfer (the previous land shall be deemed the land, but the gains from the transfer may occur) and all of the land at the time of the transfer price (including the land at the above land at the market price).

Thus, the real estate speculation control tax may be imposed on the gains from the sale of the land from the plaintiff.

Furthermore, in cases where a disposition to designate a land as a planned land substitution for the land located within a land readjustment project zone is taken, the owner of the land has the right to only profit from the land as a planned land substitution, and the previous land cannot benefit from the use. Therefore, in calculating the speculative suppression price of the previous land due to the transfer of the real estate, the appraised value of the land as planned land substitution for the use right should be decided at the market price in accordance with the substance over form principle (see Supreme Court Decision 72Nu136, Sept. 26, 1972). Thus, as of Jan. 1, 1968, the land was actually land due to the implementation of the land readjustment project as of Sep. 14, 1968, the land price of the land as planned land substitution for the land was reduced by 589No22,00,000,000 won as of Jan. 1, 196, there was no dispute between the above stated land price increase by 8,000 won per 196.6.

In this case, since the disposition of this case imposing the speculative suppression tax of KRW 756,097 on the premise that the Plaintiff transferred this case’s real property and obtained the transfer margin is unlawful, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of this lawsuit is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

[Attachment Form 1]

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)