Seocho 209west 1844 (O6, 16, 2009)

Whether comprehensive real estate holding tax is subject to tax credit for one house for one household, the aged, and the long-term holder.

Even if land annexed to a building is different from the building owner, it appears that one household house is separate in determining one house. Therefore, the Plaintiff only owns one house outside the instant case and the land in the instant case, and it is likely to regard it as one house for one household, so the tax credit for the aged and the long-term holders cannot be applied.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to reduce or correct the amount of KRW 5,579,880 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax for the year 2008 (including the Special Rural Development Tax of KRW 1,549,969) by the Plaintiff on January 8, 2009 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

가, 원고는 2008년도 귀속 종합부동산세 과세기준일인 2008. 6. 1. 현재 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 902 ☐☐아파트 101동 901호(이하, '이 사건 아파트'라고 한다)를, 원고의 배우자인 황AA는 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 450-8 대 289.9㎡ 중 289.9분의 34.79 지분 (이하, 위 지분을 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)을 각 소유하고 있고, 이 사건 토지 지상에는 원고의 처남인 황BB 소유의 철근콘크리트조 슬래브지붕 3층 근린생활시설 및 주택이 위치하고 있다.

B. On November 15, 2008, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of the instant apartment and the construction price of the instant land, on the ground that the total amount of the construction price of the instant apartment exceeds the standard amount of taxation under Articles 7 and 12 of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008) and Article 10,761,414 (including KRW 1,793,569), and the Plaintiff paid all of them on December 15, 2008.

C. On the other hand, on December 26, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of reduction to the Defendant on the ground that it constitutes one house per one household under Article 8(1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9273, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “Revised Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act”) and that Article 9(6) and (7) of the amended Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act should be applied.

D. On January 8, 2009, the Defendant revised the comprehensive real estate holding tax for 2008 to KRW 9,299,814 (including a special rural development tax for 1,549,969) with respect to the Plaintiff by applying Article 3(1) of the Addenda to the Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, and refunded KRW 1,467,200,00, which added additional dues to the difference between the already paid tax amount and the corrected tax amount (including a special rural development tax for 1,549,969) to the Plaintiff (in addition, the Defendant did not explicitly express his intention of refusal on December 26, 2008, but in light of the circumstance that only some amount was refunded without applying Article 3(6) and (7) of the revised Comprehensive Real Estate Holding Tax Act, it is obvious that the Defendant expressed his intention to not accept the Plaintiff’s request for correction, and thus, it can be deemed a rejection of the disposition of imposition as to the remaining amount of the request for correction.

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on February 25, 2009, but received a decision of dismissal on March 18, 2009. On April 7, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but received a decision of dismissal on June 16, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 2, and 5-2, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 2-1, 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim

Although the ownership of the land was owned by the owner of the land, it cannot be said that he owns the house without the ownership of the building on the land. Since the Yellow City transferred the share of the instant land to YellowB on May 13, 2000, the Plaintiff constitutes one house for one household under the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act, and thus is subject to the tax credit for the elderly and the long-term holder under Article 9(6) and (7) of the same Act, the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

In light of the relevant provisions such as Article 2 subparag. 3 and 5 of the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act, Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21193, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), Articles 180 subparag. 3, 181, 183(1), and 189(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Housing Act, the term “one house for one household” under the revised Gross Real Estate Tax Act means the case where only one of the members of a household owns one house which is subject to property tax. The term “one house” means the whole or part of a building constructed to operate a residential life, and the land annexed thereto, all of the building and the land annexed thereto are subject to payment of property tax, and the term “one house subject to property tax” should be considered differently from the building and the land annexed thereto.

With respect to this case, it is legitimate that the land of this case is "one house for one household" which is the basis for determining "one house for one household" as the object of the property tax on the land of this case, since the land of this case constitutes "one house for one household" under Article 8 (1) of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act, and therefore, it is lawful that the defendant is not subject to Article 9 (6) and (7) of the amended Gross Real Estate Tax Act (the Gross Real Estate Tax Act is to enhance the fairness of tax burden on real estate possession by imposing comprehensive real estate holding on the owner of high-amount real estate property, to contribute to the balanced development of local finance and the sound development of the national economy by stabilizing real estate prices, and to contribute to the purpose of the Income Tax Act and to achieve the goal, the scope of the house of this case should not be interpreted to the same extent as prescribed in Article 15-13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.