Whether this right is subject to capital gains tax;

"The right to duplicate" is granted to a resident who resides in the implementation of a public project to continue to prepare the basis of his living by removing the existing building of the resident who resided in the public project, etc. so that the right to duplicate can acquire real estate subject to

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

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are no dispute between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1-1, 3-1, 4-1, 6-1, 7, 8-1, 9-1, 10-1, 11-1 through 4, 12-1, 12-3, 13-1, 2, 14-1, 14-1, 2, 3, 15-1, 15-2, 2, 3, 1, 4-1, 4-1 through 9, and 10-1, 10-1, 11-2, 12-3, and 14-1, 14-2, 15-3, 1, 2, 3, 4-1, 4-9, and 1-1, 4-1, and 10-1, 10-1, and 1-3.

가. 원고들은 도시계획법상의 개발제한구역내인 별지 이축권매각및과세일람표 의 철거주택소재지 란 기재 토지상에 개발제한구역 지정 이전부터 주택을 소유하고 있다가 ㅇㅇ도가 시행한 ㅇㅇ・ㅇㅇ간 고속도로 개설로 위 주택들이 철거됨으로써 도시계획법시행령 제20조 , 같은법시행규칙 제7조 제1항 제3호 사목 (1) 의 규정에 의한 이른바 이축권을 취득하여 위 이축권을 같은일람표 양도일 란 기재 일자에 양수인 란 기재 사람들에게 양도금액 란 기재 금액에 각 양도하였다(다만 원고 박ㅇㅇ은 그 남편인 소외 망 마ㅇㅇ로부터 이축권을 상속받아 양도하였다).

B. On January 8, 1996, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the right to interest transferred by the Plaintiffs falls under the right to acquire real estate under Article 23(1)2 of the former Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 44(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), which is subject to capital gains tax, the transfer value shall be the amount written in the column for transfer price of the same sight; and (b) on the ground that the acquisition value is zero won, the Defendant imposed and notified the transfer income tax and the defense tax of the amount written in the column for imposition of tax on the same sight table to the Plaintiffs, respectively (hereinafter the instant disposition).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the above disposition grounds and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the plaintiffs asserted that the disposition of this case should be revoked on the following grounds.

첫째로, 양도소득세 부과대상인 구 소득세법 제23조 제1항 제2호 , 같은법시행령 제44조 제4항 제2호 에 정한 부동산을 취득할 수 있는 권리 라 함은 적어도 부동산을 직접 취득할 수 있는 계약상 권리만을 말한다고 할 것인데, 이른바 이축권은 개발제한구역 내에서의 건축행위의 일반적 금지를 해제하여 건축허가를 받을 수 있는 권리 또는 건축허가권에 불과하여 부동산을 취득할 수 있는 권리 에 해당하지 아니할 뿐 아니라 위 사업시행 당시 ㅇㅇ시 소속 공무원들이 편입용지 및 철거건물에 대한 협의매수를 촉진하기 위하여 이축권 양도에 대하여 양도소득세가 부과되지 아니한다고 비과세 확약을 하였음에도 원고들의 이축권 양도에 대하여 위와 같이 양도소득세를 부과한 것은 위법하다.

Second, even if the right to interest is subject to the transfer income tax, the plaintiffs received the right to interest as compensation for the right to residence and received it free of charge. Therefore, the market price of the right at the time of the supply of the right to interest and the acquisition price of the right to interest shall be deemed as zero won, and it is illegal to levy tax by considering the acquisition value as zero won even though the acquisition value cannot be

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 4 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act defines transfer income as income generated from the transfer of assets, and Article 4 (3) of the same Act provides that "transfer income is actually transferred for price due to sale, exchange, investment in kind, etc. to a corporation regardless of the registration or enrollment of the assets." Article 23 (1) of the same Act provides that transfer income shall be the income generated from the transfer of the right to real estate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under subparagraph 2, while Article 44 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "right to real estate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means the right to acquire real estate under subparagraph 2 (including the right to acquire a building and its appurtenant land at the time of the completion of the construction) while it means the right to acquire real estate under subparagraph 2:

(2) Meanwhile, Article 21(1) of the Urban Planning Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation may determine the designation of a zone where urban development is restricted as an urban planning in order to prevent any disorderly expansion of cities and to ensure the healthy living environment for urban citizens by preserving the natural environment surrounding cities, or, at the request of the Minister of National Defense, the designation of a zone where urban development is restricted may be determined as an urban planning. The main sentence of Article 21(2) provides that the construction of buildings, installation of structures, alteration of land form and quality, division of land area or urban planning project shall not be carried out in a development restriction zone designated under paragraph (1). Paragraph (3) provides that the scope of the activities to be restricted under paragraph (2) and other matters necessary for the restriction of

In addition, the main text of Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the head of a Si/Gun may permit the construction of a building and the construction of a structure falling under any of the following subparagraphs within a development restriction zone pursuant to Article 21(3) of the same Act. Article 20(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree provides that the construction of a building and the construction of a structure shall not interfere with the purpose of designating the development restriction zone; and Article 20(2) provides that the type and size of a building and a structure for housing at the time of designation of a development restriction zone shall be extended, reconstructed, or reconstructed; (3) the type and size of a building and a structure; (4) the minimum lot size of a building and a structure; (4) the ratio of building area and a site size of a building area to change the form and quality of a building area and the standards for division of land shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation; and (7) the main sentence of Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a building and a neighboring building within a development restriction zone shall be removed from a neighboring building or adjacent building site due to be removed.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the first argument of the plaintiffs

(A) Article 23 (1) 2 of the former Income Tax Act, which is subject to capital gains tax, and Article 44 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, includes the right to acquire real estate already existing or specific real estate, even if the real estate does not necessarily require that it is a specific real estate, or if the purpose real estate is not yet existing or specified, the right to specify it as real estate in the near future. Furthermore, as alleged by the plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that it is limited to contractual rights (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu424, Sept. 24, 1985).

(B) However, the so-called right to reconstruction under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act and Article 7 (1) 3 (g) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act is granted to the owner of the removed house in order to continuously prepare the basis of living in a development restriction zone if the existing building of the resident living in the project site located in the development restriction zone is removed due to the execution of a public project, etc., and the owner of the removed house is entitled to move-out the building within the development restriction zone, and if the right to move-out is transferred (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8128 delivered on May 12, 1992), the transferee should construct the building with the permission under the name of the transferor, and after the building was registered in the public book, it can be deemed that the transferor included the above registration of the building permit and the procedure for the transfer of the registered name in the public book and the comprehensive contents that the transferor cooperates with the above registration of the building permit and the transfer of the registered name.

(C) The foregoing right is deemed to mean the right to obtain a building permit by rescinding the general prohibition of the act of construction within a development-restricted zone under the construction-related laws or urban planning laws. On the other hand, the right to building permit cannot be deemed to constitute the right to acquire real estate which is subject to capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu9718, Oct. 10, 1989). However, the right to building permit is not simply limited to the right to obtain a building permit under the construction-related laws and regulations, but also has more significance in general private laws. Since the requirements for building permit are very strict and its supply is extremely limited within the development-restricted zone, and thus, the right to building permit is not for a specific real estate, but for a transfer-restricted zone, but for a transfer-restricted zone, a right to acquire real estate under the name of the transferor to acquire the real estate in the future, which is an object of acquisition of the right to acquire the real estate under its own name or a change in the name of the transferee to the real estate.

(라) 그리고 이축권은 철거당시의 주택 소유자가 앞서 본 도시계획법령의 규정에 의하여 취득하는 것이고 원고들이 주장하는 바와 같이 사업시행자로부터 보상으로 받는 것이 아니라고 할 것이고, 당원의 ㅇㅇ시장에 대한 사실조회결과에 의하면 ㅇㅇ시 소속공무원들이 편입용지 및 철거건물에 대한 협의매수절차를 진행할 당시 원고들에게 위와 같이 보상과 관련이 없는 이축권에 대하여는 언급하지 않은 사실이 인정될 뿐만 아니라 설사 당시 ㅇㅇ시 소속공무원들이 이축권에 대하여 양도소득세가 부과되지 않는다는 확약을 하였다고 하더라도 이는 피고에 대하여 아무런 효력이 없는 것으로서 피고가 이에 대하여 양도소득세를 부과한 것이 위법하다고 할 수도 없다.

(E) Therefore, the first argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the plaintiffs

이축권은 위에 본 바와 같이 철거당시의 주택 소유자가 법령의 규정에 의하여 취득하는 것이고 원고들이 주장하는 바와 같이 사업시행자로부터 보상으로 받는 것이 아니며, 또 당원의 ㅇㅇ시장에 대한 사실조회결과에 의하면 ㅇㅇ도가 위 도로공사를 시행하면서 편입용지 및 철거건물에 대하여 둘 이상의 감정평가액에 의한 시가보상을 하고 이사비와 2월분 주거비를 지급한 사실이 인정되는바, 이축권은 편입용지 및 철거건물에 대한 양도대가인 위와 같은 보상과는 별도로 개발제한구역내의 주거권보장의 일환으로 법령의 규정에 의하여 부여되는 것이어서 그에 대한 취득가액이 지급되었다고 볼 수 없으므로( 대법원 1996. 9. 6. 선고 95누17007 판결 은 이주자택지분양권에 대하여 같은 취지를 판시하고 있으나 이축권에 대하여도 이 점은 동일하다고 할 것이다) 피고가 원고들의 이축권 취득가액을 0원으로 보아 과세한 것은 적법하고, 따라서 원고들의 둘째 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and thus, the plaintiffs' claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

November 20, 1997