The scope of "owner" under Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act;

The owner under Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993) means the owner of a site or building facility within the relevant redevelopment area who is eligible for the purchase of a site or building facility by the disposal plan for sale in lots by the project implementer in accordance with Article 40 of the Urban Redevelopment Act. However, the concept of the owner includes not only the owner at the time of the project implementation approval but also the person who succeeds to the right to purchase the site or building facility of the relevant association by acquiring the ownership of the site or building facility before the sale in lots is made from the owner at the time of the project implementation approval, but also the ownership of the site or building facility shall not be included in the case of acquiring only the right to purchase the apartment house after the

Article 109(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993); Article 2(1)6 of the Urban Planning Act; Articles 40, 49(1), and 49(2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Nu9170 Decided April 26, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1535)

Plaintiff 1 and 17 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Young-young

The head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu24666 delivered on February 17, 1995

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611 of Dec. 27, 1993) provides that acquisition tax shall not be imposed in case where the owner receives substitute land due to the execution of a land readjustment project under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, a redevelopment project under the Urban Planning Act, and a development project under the Urban Planning Act, and a project operator acquires the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development or reserved land. Article 2 (1) 6 of the Urban Planning Act provides that the term “realization project used in this Act” means an urban planning project implemented under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 49 (1) and (2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act provides that a person who purchases a site or constructed facility according to the management and disposal plan for the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act shall acquire the ownership thereof on the following day after the notice of the sale, and the site or constructed facility

As above, in a case where an owner of an urban redevelopment project purchases a building facility in a site, as in the case of a site, it shall be deemed a substitute lot, and the acquisition tax shall not be imposed. Thus, since the nature of the acquisition is legally considered to be identical to the previous right due to the conversion of the right to the previous site or constructed facilities, the owner under Article 109(3) of the former Local Tax Act refers to the owner of the site or constructed facilities within the relevant redevelopment district, who is entitled to purchase a building site or constructed facilities by the disposition of parcelling-out by the project implementer in accordance with the management and disposal plan after filing an application for parcelling-out under Article 40 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, as the owner of the site or constructed facilities within the relevant redevelopment district, in the urban redevelopment project, and the concept of the owner shall be construed as including the owner at the time of the project implementation approval, as well as the person who succeeds to the right to acquire a building site or constructed facilities by acquiring the ownership of the building site or constructed facilities from the owner before the disposal of the building site or constructed facilities, it shall not be included in the case where only

However, as the judgment of the court below is duly confirmed, the plaintiffs succeeded to the right to purchase apartment units from the original owner while the buildings located within the housing improvement redevelopment project zone No. 4 of this case were already demolished, and the buildings themselves within the said redevelopment project zone are not subject to acquisition tax exemption under Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act, so the judgment of the court below that the acquisition tax imposition disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that it cannot be subject to acquisition tax exemption under Article 109 (3) of the former Local Tax Act, and the grounds for appeal against the dissenting opinion are not acceptable.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)