Where rental houses are sold within the period of sale restriction after obtaining permission from the competent authority, whether special surtax reduction or exemption is granted.

Even if the sale of housing was permitted by the competent authority before five years have elapsed since the period of restriction on the sale of rental housing under Article 10 of the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13246 of January 8, 1991) and Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13246 of January 8, 1991), it cannot be viewed as satisfying the requirements for special surtax reduction under Article 67-4(1) of the former Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 4451 of December 27, 1991), and the sale of housing was excluded from special surtax under Article 124-3(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080 of December 31, 1993).

Article 59-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 124-3 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1480 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 67-4 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 1991), Article 10 of the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4629 of Dec. 27, 1993), Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13246 of Jan. 8, 1991)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 1181 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Gwangju District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu967 delivered on September 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 10 of the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 4629 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13246 of Jan. 8, 1991), the rental housing as prescribed in the above Act is restricted to be sold for five years in principle. However, even during the limitation period of sale, if it is impossible to continue the lease due to the inevitable cause as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, it shall be allowed to sell it with the permission of the competent authorities. Article 67-4 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 1991) provides that the national housing as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (including land within a certain size) shall be transferred after renting it for five years or more, and it shall not be deemed that the above provision of the special surtax shall be reduced or exempted for 10/100 (100/100 of the above restriction period).

This is because, in principle, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act only intends to newly construct and transfer a house for sale, and special surtax reduction and exemption provisions under the Corporate Tax Act are not applicable because special support for the construction of rental housing under the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act such as financing of construction resources, preferential supply of housing sites, preferential installation of arterial facilities, etc. (Article 5 through 7 of the above Act) and special support for the construction of rental housing after lease are granted tax reduction and exemption benefits under the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, while restrictions on sale and punishment for the violation thereof are imposed (Articles 10 and 14 of the above Act).

In the same purport, the court below recognized the fact that a housing constructor registered under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, who purchased a house with an exclusive area of 270 square meters or less per household on March 29, 1989, newly constructed a house with an exclusive area of 60 square meters or less per household on the ground, which was owned by the plaintiff, and leased it to another house, but could not continue to lease due to a financial shortage, and that all of 204 households obtained a permit for sale under Article 10 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from the head of Yangyang-gu, the competent government office, for 190 to December 31, 191, 191, and rejected the principle of imposition of special surtax under Article 132 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is a new administrative disposition under Article 18 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, and thus excluded from the principle of imposition of special surtax under Article 14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the theory of the lawsuit relate to the issue of exempting the acquisition tax, etc. on the instant rental housing from the Municipal Ordinance and collecting it for the reason of the said sale, which differs from the case, or it is inappropriate to invoke the case as it is, as it is, a matter concerning the general housing, not the housing constructed and supplied for the purpose of lease under the Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act. In addition, the argument that the sale of the instant rental housing among the taxable housing subject to taxation of this case has not been completed cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal,

There is no reason or reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)