Whether necessary expenses are subject to deduction from the transfer value.

According to the Land Rearrangement Projects Act and other Acts, the liquidation money paid in accordance with the management disposition plan or the sale disposition shall be deducted from the transfer value with the facility cost and improvement cost prescribed by this Act.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 23,235,290 and KRW 4,647,050 against the Plaintiff on March 16, 1991 that exceeds KRW 3,063,645 and the defense tax of KRW 668,430 shall be revoked. 2. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on March 16, 1991.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는 사실과 갑 제1,2호증, 갑 제3호증의 2, 갑 제6,7호증, 을 제1호증의 1,2,3의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1985. 7. 31. 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 169 대 4평방미터(이하 이 사건 종전토지라 한다)를 취득하여 이를 소유하고 있었던 사실, 그런데 위 토지가 도시재개발법에 의하여 설립된 소외 ㅇㅇ구역 주택개량재개발조합이 시행하는 재개발사업구역내에 편입되어 재개발사업인 아파트건설공사가 시행됨에 따라 원고가 1988. 3. 11.경 그 소유자로서 그 재개발사업에 의하여 조성될 아파트에 대한 분양신청을 한 결과 위 같은 동 2 ㅇㅇ아파트 ㅇ동 ㅇ호(이하 이 사건 아파트라 한다) 대지 45.43평방미터 및 건물 84.91평방미터를 분양받게 되었고 그러한 취지의 관리처분계획이 인가 고시되었으며, 같은 해 12. 10. 이 사건 아파트건설공사가 완료되어 위 관리처분계획에 따른 분양처분 및 그에 관한 고시가 이루어진 사실, 원고는 1989. 1. 11. 이 사건 아파트의 가격 금36,526,000원과 이 사건 종전토지의 가격 금1,574,563원의 차액에 상당하는 청산금 금34,951,437원을 위 재개발조합에 완납한 사실, 원고는 같은 해 6. 23. 소외 정ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 아파트를 양도한 사실, 원고는 같은 해 7. 29. 이 사건 아파트의 양도에 따른 양도차익을 기준시가에 의하여 계산하고 이를 기초로 산출한 양도소득금액 금27,851,318원, 양도소득세 금7,519,856원, 방위세 금1,503,971원을 자진하여 신고 납부한 사실, 그런데 피고는 이 사건 아파트 토지 및 건물의 양도차익을 기준시가에 의하여 계산하면서 이 사건 아파트대지 45.43평방미터 중 종전토지면적 4평방미터는 종전토지의 취득일인 1985.7.31. 취득한 것으로 보고 그 취득가액 및 기타 필요경비를 산정하고 양도소득특별공제와 양도소득공제 등의 과정을 거쳐 과세표준을 결정한 후 여기에 소득세법(이하 법이라고만 한다) 제70조 제3항 제1호(1990.12.31. 법률 제4281호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)에 정한 누진세율 40/100을 적용하여 세액을 산출하고, 위 분양처분에 따라 새로 취득하게 된 나머지 토지 41.43평방미터 및 이 사건 아파트 건물에 관하여는 그 취득시기를 위 청산금의 완납일인 위 1989. 1. 11.로 보고 그 취득가액은 위 청산금 금34,951,437원 중 이 사건 아파트 취득당시의 기준시가 금17,143,273원의 그 실지취득가액인 위 분양가격 금36,526,000원에 대한 비율상당액인 금16,404,260원(34,951,437 x 17,143,273 / 36,526,000)으로 보아 그 양도차익을 산정하고 이를 과세표준으로 하여 위 법조항 제3호에 정한 보유기간 2년 미만의 자산에 관한 가중세율 60/100을 적용하여 세액을 산출한 다음 위 각 세액을 합한 금액에서 예정신고납부세액공제액 및 기납부세액을 공제하고 가산세를 가산하여 결정한 양도소득세 및 방위세를 청구취지 기재와 같이 부과하는 이 사건 처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's calculation of transfer margin of the apartment of this case at the time of the disposition of this case, considering the liquidation money as a kind of equipment and improvement cost and did not reach such amount in total deducted from the transfer value. Further, the apartment of this case is a house below national housing size and its appurtenant land, and its appurtenant land for more than two years until the time of transfer, since the apartment of this case was owned on July 31, 195, which is the acquisition date of previous land of this case, the tax amount should be calculated by applying the reduction rate of 30/100 as stipulated in subparagraph

Therefore, under Article 49 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, a person who purchased a building site or constructed facility in accordance with the management and disposal plan under the same Act acquires the ownership of the building site or constructed facilities sold in lots on the following day after the announcement of the sale in lots (Paragraph 1), and the building site or constructed facilities so acquired shall be considered as a substitute lot under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act (Paragraph 2). According to Article 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced, the land substitution stipulated in the land substitution plan shall be considered as the previous land from the following day after the announcement of the land substitution disposition is made, and under Article 53 (3) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (only in this Decree), the land acquired through a land substitution disposition under the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act or other Acts shall be deemed to have acquired the land before the date of acquisition of the previous land within the land substitution in accordance with the existing land substitution disposal plan, and under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the sale in lots shall be deemed to have been calculated by the standard market value at the time of the sale in lots.

However, according to Article 45 (1) 2 of the Act, the cost of installation and improvement are one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value in calculating gains from transfer. According to Article 94 (2) 4 of the Decree and Article 47 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1847 of March 6, 191), the cost of the project, such as the cost of replotting settlement, borne by the owner of land in the project area concerned due to the project implemented under the Land Readjustment Project Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes, shall be deemed the above cost of installation and improvement. Accordingly, according to the above management disposition plan or the disposition of sale in lots, the liquidation amount paid by the plaintiff shall be deducted from the transfer value as claimed by the plaintiff (Article 94 (5) 1 of the Decree prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190).

In addition, the tax rate applicable to the income accrued from the transfer of apartment houses of this case shall be deemed to have accrued from the transfer of the previous land of this case for not less than two years, and the progressive tax rate under Article 70 (3) 1 of the Act shall be applied to the income accrued from the transfer of the previous land of this case. As for the portion of the land area and the portion of the building in excess of the previous land area among the gains from the transfer of apartment of this case as in the disposition of this case, as the period of holding is less than two years, the aggravated tax rate as seen earlier does not apply, and as alleged by the plaintiff, it shall not be applied to the reduced tax rate accordingly.

3. Justifiable tax amount.

If the plaintiff calculates the amount of tax to be additionally paid by the plaintiff in addition to the amount of tax that has already been voluntarily paid on the income accrued to the plaintiff from the transfer of the apartment of this case in accordance with the above legal principles and the relevant laws and regulations, capital gains tax shall be KRW 3,063,645 as shown in the attached tax calculation sheet, and the defense tax shall be KRW 66

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part exceeding the tax amount of the above recognition among the disposition of this case is unlawful, it shall be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of seeking the revocation of the excess part, and the remaining claim shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.