logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 이 사건 아파트가 건축주로부터 최초로 분양 받은 공동주택으로써 구 ○○도세감면조례 제15조의 규정에 따른 취득세 등 면제대상에 해당하는지 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2002-02-20 | 2002-0168 | 지방
[Case Number]

2002-0168 (202.02.20)

[Items]

Local Tax

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership to ○○○○○○ was cancelled for the first time, the claimant cannot recognize the apartment of this case as being sold for the first time by the claimant, so the claim shall be dismissed.

[Related Acts]

Article 1 of the Local Tax Act

【Disposition】

The claimant's request for review shall be dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of the original disposition;

The disposition agency exempted the acquisition tax and the registration tax pursuant to Article 15(1) of the old Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of ○○○ Do Taxes (amended by Ordinance No. 2905 of December 30, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply) by deeming that the claimant has first sold the apartment to two households (49.80 square meters of exclusive use area; hereinafter the same shall apply) other than 00,00, 00, 00 Do ○○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○).

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

The claimant received the sale of the apartment of this case from ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “owner”) other than the claimant for the purpose of lease, but the apartment of this case was registered first to ○○○○○○○, Inc., a corporation other than the claimant's application for registration due to error in the owner's application for registration, but the registration of transfer of ownership to ○○○, Inc., a corporation other than the claimant's application for registration was cancelled later, so the claimant should regard the applicant as the first seller of the apartment of this case and be exempted from the acquisition tax, etc. in accordance with the former Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of ○○, etc., and therefore,

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

The dispute over the request for examination of this case is whether the apartment house of this case is subject to exemption from acquisition tax, etc. under Article 15 of the former Ordinance on Reduction and Exemption of ○○○ Do Tax as the apartment house that was first sold by the owner of

First of all, Article 15(1) of the former Ordinance on the Reduction and Exemption of ○○ Do Taxes provides that the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be exempted for the real estate for the rental house constructed by the rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act for the purpose of leasing two or more households, and the first apartment house for sale from the owner of the building for the rental house with an exclusive use area of

Next, according to the process of selling the apartment of this case, after entering into a sales contract for the apartment of this case with the owner on July 5, 200 and the other company ○○○○, the sales contract for the apartment of this case was concluded and paid in full on July 14, 2000. On August 28, 2000, the registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled on the ground of error in the application for registration, and the registration of transfer of ownership was made on August 31, 2000 on the ground of sale on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled on the ground of error in the application for registration, and the disposition agency can find the fact that the claimant was not the person who first sold the apartment of this case and imposed the acquisition tax, etc. reduced or exempted from the initial acquisition tax on the apartment of this case

In light of the claim that the registration of transfer of ownership has been cancelled by mistake in the owner's application for registration of the apartment of this case, the claimant should be deemed the first seller of the apartment of this case. In light of the claim that the apartment of this case (○○○,○, ○○○○, and ○○○) should be seen as the first buyer of the apartment of this case, it is confirmed that the sale contract between the owner and the non-claim-○○, on July 5, 2000 entered into between the owner of the apartment of this case and the non-claim-O○, acquired the sale price per contract in lump sum in full with the owner of the building. On July 13, 2000, the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale was reported to the disposition agency on July 14, 200 and the transfer of ownership was registered on July 26, 200 after the local tax reduction or exemption on July 26, 200, the claimant first purchaser should be deemed to be the corporation ○○○○, and thereafter received the ownership transfer registration of this case.

Therefore, since the claimant's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered by Article 77 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

April 29, 2002

Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice;

arrow