logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1978. 6. 27. 선고 78누106 판결
[부동산투기억제세부과처분취소][공1978.9.15.(592),10983]
Main Issues

The meaning of "person who owned land before January 1, 1963" referred to in paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Real Estate Speculation.

Summary of Judgment

"Persons who own land before January 1, 1963" in paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate (Law No. 2281, Jan. 13, 1971) shall be interpreted as those who acquired ownership before January 1, 1963.

[Reference Provisions]

Paragraph 3 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu263 delivered on March 8, 1978

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The court below held that it is reasonable to interpret that "the person who owned the land before January 1, 1963" means the person who acquired the ownership before January 1, 1963, and "the person who acquired the land before January 1, 1963" as a transitional measure under paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 2281, Jan. 13, 1971; Act No. 2281, Jan. 1, 1963; and therefore, even if the plaintiff acquired the land before January 1, 1963, the court below held that since it completed the registration of ownership transfer as non-taxation for the date of acquisition of the land, the plaintiff's assertion that the land constitutes a non-taxation for the price of real estate speculation without examining the time of acquisition is groundless. The court below's above decision is justified in its conclusion that it is consistent with the purport of the judgment of the court below prior to the de facto attack.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)

arrow