Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap23778 ( October 09, 2009)

Seocho 209west 1196 ( October 16, 2009)

Where the owners of buildings and land annexed thereto are different, a taxpayer of comprehensive real estate holding tax.

If the owner of a building and its appurtenant land are different, the property tax shall be paid in accordance with the method prescribed by the Local Tax Act. Thus, even if the building owner and its appurtenant land subject to the property tax are different, the land annexed to the building subject to the property tax should be considered as a separate house in determining the "one house for one household" under the Act.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 23, 2009 against the plaintiff on February 23, 2009 is revoked.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to the cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. As such, expanding interpretation or analogical interpretation of the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to taxpayers without any justifiable reason causes a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law, and thus, it is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25,

B. According to Article 2 of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act, Article 180 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 2 of the Housing Act, the term “house subject to comprehensive real estate tax” refers to the whole or part of the building in which members of a household can live an independent residential life between a long-term and its appurtenant land, and it does not mean only the building above the site. In addition, Article 7 of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act provides that the taxpayer of the property tax shall be the taxpayer, and Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Local Tax Act provides that the property tax under Article 183 of the Local Tax Act shall be the property tax on house. Article 183(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that the owner of the building and appurtenant land of the building shall be different from the owner of the building and appurtenant land of the building, the owner shall be the person liable to pay the calculated tax on the house in proportion to the standard market value of the building and appurtenant land under Article 111(2) of the same Act.

C. According to the records in the case of this case, since the plaintiff owned the apartment house of this case and the plaintiff's wife owned the land of this case on which the property tax of this case is imposed, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as one house for one household as stipulated in Article 8 (1) of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act (the comprehensive real estate tax was newly established under Article 8 (4) of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9710 of May 27, 2009) and the land annexed to another house (referring to the land annexed to the house where the owner owns only the land annexed to the house) when applying Article 8 (1). However, Article 2 of the Addenda of this Act applies to the disposition of this case on the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 208 since the first time becomes effective after this Act enters into force.

D. Therefore, a plaintiff's claim for a transfer-to-household case shall not be justified, which is seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting a transfer-to-household case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.