The date of authorization for project implementation shall refer to the date of public announcement.

Even if the date of authorization for project implementation has been properly given a disposition of authorization for project implementation through the process of draft, approval, etc., it shall not be deemed that it takes effect externally, and only if it is published in the Official Gazette, it shall take effect externally.

Article 89 of the former Income Tax Act

Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act

1. The defendant's disposition rejecting the correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on March 15, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The decision is as follows (the plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition rejecting correction from March 17, 2007, but it seems to be a clerical error in March 15, 2007).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 2, 3, and 1 through 3 may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. A. Around September 1995, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○-dong 20-○ apartment 306 408 Dong, Seoul ○○-dong 20-○ apartment 308, and Lee Nam-nam, who was the spouse of the Plaintiff, acquired ○○-dong 862 206 Dong 1502 Dong, 1502.

B. The Plaintiff also consented to the establishment of the housing reconstruction project association for the reconstruction of the above ○○ apartment complex. After reviewing the implementation plan for the housing reconstruction project submitted by the said association, the head of Seocho-gu decided to approve the project implementation on October 30, 2004, and publicly notified the above approval on November 10, 2004 in the official report.

C. On November 1, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a divorce report by agreement with Lee Jong-nam.

D. On December 23, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the status of being selected as an occupant through the above association (hereinafter referred to as the "occupant right of this case"), and on February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 294,789,530,00, which is calculated by calculating the transfer value as KRW 1,150,000 in relation to the transfer of the right of occupancy of this case to the Defendant.

E. On June 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of transfer income tax to the Defendant to the effect that the transfer of the right to move in in the instant case constitutes one house non-taxation requirement for one household, and thus, refund of KRW 228,873,720 of transfer income tax was requested. However, on March 15, 2007, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition on the ground that the transfer of the right to move in in the instant case to the Plaintiff did not meet one house non-taxation requirement for one household (hereinafter

F. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 12, 2007, but was dismissed on November 22, 2007.

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The "date of authorization for project implementation" under Article 155 (16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18850 of May 31, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act") refers to the date of public announcement of authorization for project implementation. The plaintiff and Lee Nam-nam agreed that the above ○○ apartment owned by the plaintiff and the above ○○2 apartment shall be owned by Lee Nam-nam, and the above ○○○ apartment shall be owned by the plaintiff and the above ○○○2 apartment, and as a result of the report of a divorce on November 1, 2004, the plaintiff constitutes one house owner who only owns the right to move in of this case as of the date of public announcement of authorization for project implementation as of November 10,

(2) The defendant's assertion

The "date of project implementation authorization" under Article 155 (16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to the date on which the project implementation is decided, and the plaintiff and Lee Dong-Nam owned the right to move in in of this case as of the date of project implementation authorization ( October 30, 2004) and the above ○○○ apartment as of the date of project implementation authorization. Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 of the former Income Tax Act

Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

C. Determination

Article 155 (16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that where a member of a rearrangement project association (limited to one house for one household as of the date of authorization for project implementation under Article 28 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents as of the date of authorization for project implementation under Article 28 of the same Act, whose period of possession is not less than 3 years and who owns an existing house whose period of residence is not less than 2 years during the period of possession is not less than 2 years) transfers the status of being selected as an occupant through the relevant association (including land attached thereto), it shall be deemed as one house for one household under Article 154 (1

Therefore, Article 28 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008) provides that when a project implementer intends to implement a rearrangement project, it shall submit to the head of the Si/Gun along with articles of association and other documents as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and obtain an authorization for the project implementation. Article 28 (3) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007) provides that where a project implementation authorization under paragraph (1) is granted, the number of markets and neighboring areas shall be publicly notified in the official report of the relevant local government by the method and procedure as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. In light of the public nature of a rearrangement project, the above Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents becomes effective as the requirement for the authorization for the project implementation. Thus, the public announcement of the project implementation authorization becomes effective by inserting.

Therefore, the "date of authorization for project implementation" under Article 155 (16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be Nov. 10, 2004 publicly notified by the head of Seocho-gu in the Official Gazette. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the date of decision for authorization for project implementation ( October 30, 2004) is project implementation authorization is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.