74.12.31. Method of calculating the acquisition value at the time of designating the previous land as reserved land for replotting;

Of transferred assets, the acquisition value of the land that was acquired before December 31, 74.1 can be known to the effect that it is the value appraised by the market price and the standard market price as of January 1, 75. The fact that the previous land is designated as a reserved land for replotting as of January 1, 75.1 that the acquisition area subject to the calculation of acquisition value cannot be regarded as a reserved land for replotting.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 5,526,013, 1,105,204 against the Plaintiff on September 15, 198, which exceeds KRW 2,521,09, and the defense tax of KRW 504,222, among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 5,526,013, and the defense tax of KRW 1,105,204, is revoked. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on September 15, 198.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑제 1호증(납세고지서), 갑제 2호증(시정요구서), 갑제 3호증(환지예정지지정증명원), 갑제 4호증(영수증, 갑제 9호증과 같다), 갑제 5, 6호증(각 결정서), 갑제 7호증(결정통지), 갑제 8호증(자진납부계산서), 갑제 10호증(영수증), 갑제 11호증(토지대장), 을제 1호증의 1(갱정결정결의서), 2(동 내역서), 을제 2호증의 1(결정결의서), 2(동 내역서), 을제 3호증(자료전)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 원고가 1971. 9. 6. ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 ○○번지 전 450평(1488평방미터)을 취득하여 소유하고 있던중 위 토지가 1974. 12. 10. 서울시의 토지구획정리사업의 실시로 인하여 같은동 ○○번지 대 165.3평(546.4평방미터)으로 환지예정 되었다가 1987. 3. 2. 토지구획정리사업이 완료되면서 같은동 ○○번지 대 180.4평(595.6평방미터, 이하 이사건 토지라 한다)로 환지 확정된 사실, 그리고 원고는 같은해 10. 31. 이사건 토지중 증평된 15.1평(49.2평방미터)에 대한 청산금 12,665,000원을 ○○시에 납부하고, 같은해 12. 19. 이사건 토지를 타에 양도하고 나서 1988. 1. 25. 위 자산의 양도에 따른 양도차익 예정신고를 함에 있어서 양도가액은 이사건 토지가 양도당시에는 특정지역에 해당하므로 이사건 토지중 환지예정지 면적에 해당하는 165.3평에 관하여 배율방법에 따라 평가한 기준시가 금액에다가 증평부분에 관한 환지청산금을 합한 금액으로 하고, 취득가액은 종전토지 면적인 450평에 관하여 소득세법의 관계규정에 따라 취득일을 1975. 1. 1.로 보고 재무부령이 정하는 방법에 따라 환산한 기준시가금액에다가 증평부분에 관한 환지청산금을 합한 금액으로 하여 그 양도차익을 산출하고, 이를 기초로 세액을 계산하여 양도소득세 금 35,934,760원, 방위세 금 7,186,950원을 자진납부한 사실, 이에 피고는 원고의 위 예정신고내용을 부인하고 양도가액은 환지확정된 이사건 토지에 관하여 양도당시의 토지등급인 192등급을 적용하여 배율방법에 따라 평가한 기준시가금액으로 하고, 취득가액은 종전토지(450평)를 그 취득일로 의제되는 1975. 1. 1.에 취득한 것으로 보아 당시 토지등급인 47등급을 적용하여 환산방법에 의한 기준시가금액으로 하여 그 양도차익을 산출하고, 이를 기초로 세액을 계산하여 양도소득세를 금 42,969,604원, 방위세 금 8,359,426원으로 각각 증액결정한 다음 위 자진납부세액을 공제하여 1988. 9. 15. 원고에게 차감고지세액으로서 양도소득세 금 7,034,840원, 방위세 금 1,406,970원을 부과고지하였는데 1989. 5. 20. 원고의 심판청구에 따른 국세심판에서 이사건 토지중 과도면적에 해당하는 15.1평의 취득일은 환지청산금을 납부한 1987. 10. 30.로, 양도일은 같은해 12. 19.로 하고, 그 취득가액은 환지청산금인 금 12,665,000원으로, 양도가액은 소득세법시행령 제115조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 의 규정에 의한 환산가액으로 하여 당해 과세표준과 세액을 산정하여야 한다는 결정을 하자 1989. 6. 9. 위 국세심판결정에 따라 이사건 토지의 양도로 인한 양도차익을 산출함에 있어서 이사건 토지를 환지예정지 면적부분과 증평된 과도면적 부분으로 나누어서 환지예정지 면적 546.4평방미터에 관하여는 소득세법(법률제2705호) 부칙 제16조 , 같은법시행령(대통령령 제7458호) 부칙 제9조 의 규정에 따라 그 취득일을 1975. 1. 1.로 보고 당시 토지등급인 47등급을 적용하여 배율방법에 의한 가액을 취득가액으로 하고, 그 양도가액은 양도당시의 토지등급인 192등급을 적용하여 배율방법에 의한 가액으로 하고, 증평된 과도면적 4.92평방미터에 관하여는 서울시에 납부한 환지청산금 12,665,000원을 취득가액으로 하고, 양도가액은 소득세법시행령 제115조 제1항 제1호 (다)목 의 규정에 의한 환산가액으로 하여 양도차익을 산출하고 이를 기초로 별지 제1 세액산출표 기재와 같이 세액을 계산하여 양도소득세를 금 41,460,773원, 방위세를 금 8,292,154원으로 각 각 감액하고, 위 자진납부세액을 공제하여 차감고지세액으로 양도소득세 금 5,526,013원, 방위세 금 1,105,204원으로 감액결정(이하 이를 이사건 과세처분이라 한다)을 하고 그 무렵 이를 원고에게 통지한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

2. As to the defendant's assertion that the taxation disposition in this case is lawful on the ground of the above grounds for disposition and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff first, when the defendant calculates the acquisition value, the amount of the standard market price as of January 1, 1975 with the size of the previous land as of January 1, 1975 as of January 1, 1975, and although the land substitution liquidation money as to the increased excessive area should be appropriated as the necessary expenses, the acquisition value is erroneous in calculating the total amount of the land substitution liquidation money as of January 1, 1975 as of January 1, 1975, by adding the land substitution liquidation money to the current standard market price of 546 square meters as of January 1, 1975. Second, in calculating the transfer margin, the defendant did not automatically deduct 1,500,000 won from the transfer

Therefore, according to the provision of Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, where the actual transaction value is unclear, gains from the transfer of land which was disposed of by the previous landowner under the Land Partition Project Act or the Rural Modernization Promotion Act, the calculation of gains from the transfer of land 】 (the usual number of previous land x the ordinary price at the time of acquisition + other necessary expenses) ? The former landowner’s transfer of the land is determined by the formula of gains from the transfer 197. The current acquisition value of the land is not determined by the size of the previous land or the replotting 197.19.1.3.3.6.6.6.6.6.97.6.6.6.17.6.6.6.6. of the previous land is determined by the Presidential Decree No. 1971.6.15.6.6.17.

Therefore, as in the case of this case, even if the previous land acquired by the Plaintiff on September 6, 1971 was designated as the reserved land at the time of January 1, 1975, the acquisition area subject to the calculation of the acquisition value shall be 450 square meters, which is the area of the previous land, and when calculating the acquisition value, the class 47 of the land, etc. as of January 1, 1975, as of January 1, 1975, shall be applied (the fact that the land grade of the above reserved land as of January 1, 1975 is class 47, does not conflict between the parties).

In addition, since the above substitute lot settlement money is borne by the plaintiff, who is the land owner due to the land readjustment project, this falls under the cost of equipment and improvement, which are necessary expenses deducted from the transfer value under the provisions of Article 45 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, Article 94 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 47 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, so the above substitute lot settlement money should be deducted from the transfer value of this case as necessary expenses, so the plaintiff's first argument is well-grounded.

Next, the plaintiff's argument that the transfer income tax deduction should be limited to 1,50,000 won in the calculation of the transfer income amount which is the tax base of the transfer income tax, is clearly the purport of limiting the transfer income deduction amount to 1,50,000 won in the calculation of the transfer income amount which is the tax base of the transfer income tax. Thus, even if the resident transfers 2 or more assets at two or more times in the first taxable year, the transfer income deduction should be allowed only 1,50,000 won in the total transfer income amount of the first taxable year and 00 won in the same transfer income tax deduction for each transfer income or transfer income at 00,000 won again, and there is no difference between the transfer income tax and 00,000 won in the first taxable year and the transfer income tax deduction for 0,000 won in the same transfer income tax (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 85Nu678, Jun. 10, 198).

Furthermore, the acquisition area which is the object of calculating the acquisition value with respect to the transfer of the land in this case shall be 1488 square meters, which is the area of the previous land, and when the substitute land settlement amount is calculated as necessary expenses and the reasonable tax amount to be paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is calculated, the transfer income tax amount of 38,445,859 won, defense tax amount of 7,691,172 won, as shown in the attached Table 2 of Calculation of Tax Amount, as shown in the attached Table of Calculation of Tax Amount, shall be deducted, and the transfer income tax to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 2,521,09, defense tax amount of 504,222 won, and therefore, the portion exceeding the above legitimate tax amount of

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.