It satisfies the high-class housing standards set forth in the Income Tax Act, and excludes newly built house exemption.

In this case, the standard of the high-class house is not the sale price on the date of acquisition of the sale contract, but the actual transaction price at the time of transfer exceeds 60 million won.

2015Gudan61637 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

O Head of tax office

April 6, 2016

June 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 179,597,580 for the Plaintiff on June 3, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 19, 200, the Plaintiff acquired OOOO apartment OO apartment OOOOO apartment OOOO2 (hereinafter “the previous house”) in Seoul OOOOdong, but it was implemented a reconstruction project for the previous house, and on September 30, 2004, the area for exclusive use by its occupant is 170.7 square meters, acquired OOOO apartment OOOOO apartment OOO2 (hereinafter “the newly-built house of this case”).

B. After transferring the newly-built house of this case on February 15, 2008, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 181,274,400 to the Plaintiff.

C. On August 25, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction on the ground that the transfer of the newly-built house in this case constitutes the provision on reduction or exemption of newly-built house under Article 99-3(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) in which the transfer income tax is fully reduced. The Defendant accepted the above claim for correction and refunded the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff.

D. On June 3, 2013, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the instant newly-built house of KRW 240,822,390 (including additional payment for arrears) in 2008 on the ground that the size of the newly-built house in this case is 170.7 square meters and the transfer value is 1.675 million won, which constitutes a de facto high-class house and does not constitute reduction and exemption of newly-built house under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

E. According to the Board of Audit and Inspection’s decision that the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection, and that the amount of tax for unfaithful payment should be corrected, the Defendant issued a decision of correction that reduces the amount of tax for unfaithful payment of KRW 61,224,810 (hereinafter “disposition of this case for imposition of KRW 179,597,580 of the transfer income tax remaining after reduction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 13 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 99-3(1) and the proviso of Article 29(1) of the Addenda of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 1692, Sep. 19, 2000) stipulate that the high-class housing standard as of the date when the contract was concluded and the down payment was made, shall be applied. Thus, the provisions of the above Act and the above Act shall be applied in line with the legislative intent of supporting and recovering the construction competition by resolving the sports-building housing in bulk and removing the accumulated unsold housing in lots, and the determination of whether the housing was high-class shall be made based on the size and sale price on the sales contract at the time of the payment of the down payment. In the instant newly-built housing in question, although the exclusive use area exceeds the 170.7 square meters high-class housing, the sales contract price concluded between the reconstruction association and the Plaintiff on Sept. 19, 200, constitutes a high-class housing subject to reduction and exemption.

(2) The instant disposition, which disregards the original decision on the tax authority’s request for correction at the lapse of five years for a case legally accepted by the tax authority upon the initial request for correction, is an obvious abuse of tax authority, is extremely detrimental to the property rights, which are fundamental rights of the people, and is also seriously detrimental to the principles of good faith and to the legal stability. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on the first argument

(1) The newly-built house in this case that the Plaintiff acquired as a member of the association was approved for use on September 30, 2004 after the newly-built house acquisition period (from May 23, 2001 to June 30, 2003) stipulated in Article 99-3 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the housing association directly concluded a sales contract for the remaining house with a person other than a member of the association and received the down payment within the said newly-built house, and there is no dispute between the parties that the housing association received the down payment. Thus, the newly-built house in this case is included in the newly-built house subject to an exemption from capital gains tax under Article 99-3 (3) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and it is a question whether the newly-built house in this case

Article 29 (1) of the Addenda of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762, Dec. 11, 2002; effective January 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "the Addenda of this case") provides that "where a sales contract was concluded with a housing constructor for the first time before this Act enters into force, or a newly-built house which has obtained approval for use or inspection for use (including approval for temporary use) is transferred after this Act enters into force, the previous provisions shall be applied to the calculation of the income subject to capital gains tax and the income subject to capital gains tax, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (1) or 99-3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10655, Feb. 16, 200). In this case, a person other than a housing association or a person who has received a down payment or a newly-built house built by him, whose total area exceeds 100 million won, shall be excluded from the transfer income tax prescribed by the Presidential Decree No. 275 days.8.

(2) Ultimately, the issue of whether the instant newly-built house, which is a multi-family housing, constitutes a high-class house is whether the exclusive use area of the house is 165 square meters or more and the actual transaction price is more than 60 million won pursuant to Article 156 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. According to the aforementioned evidence and the statement in Gap evidence, the exclusive use area of the newly-built house in this case is 170.7 square meters, and the sale price of the newly-built house in this case is 582,000 square meters, and the actual transaction price at the time of transfer is 1.675 million won and more than 165 square meters, and therefore, the value of the newly-built house in this case is 1.675 million won and the value of the newly-built house in this case is 582,018,000 won at the time of transfer.

살피건대, ① 신축주택에 대한 수요를 진작하여 부동산경기를 활성화시키려는 조세특례제한법의 입법취지와 조세의 감면 또는 중과 등 조세특례와 이의 제한에 관한 사항을 규정하는 조세특례제한법의 특성을 고려한다고 하더라도 과세요건이거나 비과세요건 또는 조세감면요건을 막론하고 조세법규의 해석은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 법문대로 해석하여야 하고 합리적 이유 없이 확장해석하거나 유추해석하는 것은 허용되지 아니하는 조세법률주의 원칙 아래에서 이 사건 부칙 조항과 구 소득세법 시행령 제156조 제2호를 해석해야 하는데, 구 소득세법 시행령 제156조 제2호는 명시적으로 취득당시가 아닌 '양도 당시'의 실지거래가액이 6억 원을 초과하는 것을 고급주택의 요건중 하나로 규정하고 있으며, 이 사건 부칙 조항은 매매계약을 체결하고 계약금을 납부한 날 또는 자기가 건설한 신축주택으로서 사용승인 또는 사용검사를 받은 날 당시의 고급주택 '기준'을 적용한다고 규정되어 있는데, 이는 그 당시에 고급주택의 범위에 포섭될 수 있는 기준, 즉 소득세법 시행령이 개정되면서 고급주택의 범위에 포함되는 면적 기준이나 가액 기준이 그때그때 변경되므로 계약금을 납부한 날 또는 사용승인 또는 사용검사를 받은 날 당시에 적용되는 소득세법 시행령에서 규정하는 고급주택으로 평가하는 기준이 적용된다는 의미로 해석될 뿐 매매계약을 체결하고 계약금을 납부한날 또는 사용승인 또는 사용검사를 받은 날 당시의 가액을 적용한다고 해석되기는 어려운 점, ② 양도소득세는 자산을 유상으로 사실상 이전하면서 발생한 소득에 대한 세금을 부과하는 것으로 양도소득세의 감면 대상이 되는 고급주택 기준을 적용할 때 취득 당시의 실지거래가액이 아닌 양도 당시의 실지거래가액을 기준으로 고급주택에 해당하는지 여부를 판단하는 것이 타당해 보이는 점, ③ 원고는 만약 양도 당시의 실지거래가액 기준으로 고급주택을 판단한 경우 별도로 이 사건 부칙 조항의 후단 단서를 신설할 필요가 없었다는 취지로 주장하나, 이 사건 부칙 조항은 2002. 12. 11. 조세특례제한법이 개정되어 2013. 1. 1.부터 시행되면서 신축주택의 취득자에 대하여 종전의구 조세특례제한법이 적용되는 경우를 규정한 것으로 신축주택 감면 대상에서 제외되는 고급주택의 경우 그 기준이 소득세법 시행령이 개정되면서 수시로 변경되므로 언제의 고급주택 기준이 적용될 지를 명확히 하기 위하여 후단 규정을 마련할 필요성이 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 원고는 대법원 2008. 6. 12. 선고 2007두25428 판결을 들어 매매계약을 체결한 날을 기준으로 고급주택 해당 여부를 결정하도록 판시한 것으로 해석되므로 고급주택 기준 중 가액 기준(6억 원)은 양도 당시 매매가액이 아닌 매매계약일 당시의 분양가액을 적용하는 것이 타당하다고 주장하나, 원고가 든 위 판결은 신축주택이 구 조세특례제한법 제99조의3 제1항 제1호에 해당하는지 아니면 제2호에 해당하는지 여부, 구 조세특례제한법 제99조의3 제1항 제1호에 해당한다면 고급주택 여부를 판단하는데 있어 매매계약을 체결하고 계약금을 납부한 날이 기준인지 아니면 사용승인 또는 사용검사를 받은 날 당시가 기준인지가 문제된 사안으로 위 사안에서 신축주택이 구 조세특례제한법 제99조의3 제1항 제1호에 해당하고, 이 경우 고급주택 여부를 판단할 때에는 사용승인 또는 사용검사를 받은 날(이 때를 기준으로 하는 경우 그 당시 시행되던 구 소득세법 시행령에 따르면 면적 기준이 없이 양도가액이 6억 원을 넘는 경우에만 고급주택에 해당함)이 아닌 매매계약을 체결하고 계약금을 납부한날이 기준이 되어 당시 적용되던 구 소득세법 시행령(2002. 12. 30. 대통령령 제17825호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제156조 제2호의 공동주택의 고급주택의 기준인 주택의 전용면적 149㎡ 이상이며 양도 당시의 실지거래가액이 6억 원을 초과한다는 규정이 적용된다는 것으로 위 사안에서의 신축주택은 전용면적이 149㎡ 이하로 당시 적용되는 고급주택 기준의 전용면적에 미달하여 고급주택에 해당하지 않는다는 취지이므로, 원고주장처럼 고급주택을 판단할 때 양도 당시의 실지거래가액이 아니라 분양 당시의 실지거래가액이 적용된다는 근거로 삼을 수는 없을 뿐만 아니라 오히려 고급주택을 판정함에 있어서 양도 당시의 실지거래가액이 기준이 되는 취지의 판례가 있는 점(대법원2012. 10. 25. 선고 2010두 6878 판결 등)을 종합하면, 이 사건에서 고급주택의 기준은 양도 당시의 실지거래가액이 6억 원을 초과하는지에 따라 결정되어야 할 것이다.

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, not less than 1.675 billion won exceeding the value at the time of transfer of the newly-built house of this case, which is the value at the time of transfer.

D. Judgment on the second argument

In light of the fact that the National Tax Basic Act, etc. provides for the disposition of correction by the tax authorities, the imposition and collection of taxes are based on the citizen's tax liability, and in principle, it does not infringe property rights. However, in the event that the deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation and the denial of the private property system may result in infringement of property rights, the tax authority received the Plaintiff's request for correction on the ground that the tax authority constitutes a newly-built house under Article 99-3 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the taxation authority abused the tax right or infringed the property right merely because it again imposed a disposition on the ground that

In addition, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax and law relations, the tax authorities must express the public opinion that is the object of trust to taxpayers, and the taxpayer is not responsible for the taxpayer to believe that the name of the opinion of the tax authorities is justifiable, and the taxpayer must act in trust and what is it is, and the tax authorities shall make a disposition contrary to the above opinion list, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du1115, Jun. 12, 2008). In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff committed an act in trust of the opinion list of the customs authorities, and without examining it, it does not violate the principle of trust and good faith.

The tax authorities deeming that the newly-built house in this case does not constitute a high-class house and thus constitutes a newly-built house subject to reduction and exemption, and deeming that it falls under a high-class house and thus cannot be deemed to undermine legal stability.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.