Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Registration of the lessor for construction rental housing
Supreme Court, Sept. 4, 2025, 2025Du32968 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 양도소득세경정거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does 'construction rental housing under the Rental Housing Act' in the proviso to Article 97(1) of the former Special Tax Limitation Act require that the person who built and let the house for rental purposes be a rental business operator registered under Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act, and does housing built under the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act qualify through the supplementary provision of the former Rental Housing Act?
Holding
Yes in principle. Absent special circumstances, the person who built and let the house for rental purposes must be a rental business operator registered under Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act, and a registration made under Article 5 of the Enforcement Rules of the former Land Ownership Limitation Act does not by itself settle that requirement. Housing built under the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act can still be construction rental housing through the supplementary provision of the former Rental Housing Act. The court below should have examined whether the plaintiff's business registration actually fell under Article 11(1)(iii) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Land Ownership Limitation Act before deciding whether the requirements were met.
Points at issue, verbatim
임대를 목적으로 해당 주택을 건설하여 임대하는 행위의 주체가 구 임대주택법 제6조 제1항이 정한 바에 따라 등록을 마친 임대사업자여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the person who constructs the relevant housing unit for the purpose of rental and rents it out must be a rental business operator who has completed registration as prescribed in Article 6 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act (affirmative in principle)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중에서 피고가 2021. 1. 25. 원고에 대하여 한 2015년 귀속 양도소득세 292,618,250원의 경정거부처분 중 107,780,335원을 초과하는 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, exceeding 107,780,335 won, of the disposition refusing the correction of capital gains tax of 292,618,250 won for the year 2015 that the defendant imposed on the plaintiff on January 25, 2021, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 조세특례제한법 제97조 제1항 단서에서 정한 ‘임대주택법에 따른 건설임대주택’에 해당하기 위해서는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임대를 목적으로 해당 주택을 건설하여 임대하는 행위의 주체가 구 임대주택법 제6조 제1항이 정한 바에 따라 등록을 마친 임대사업자여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to fall under the category of 'a rental housing unit constructed under the Rental Housing Act' as provided in the proviso to Article 97 (1) of the former Restriction on Special Taxation Act, absent special circumstances, the person who constructs the relevant housing unit for the purpose of rental and rents it out must be a rental business operator who has completed registration as prescribed in Article 6 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act.
Factors
- 임대를 목적으로 해당 주택을 건설하여 임대하는 행위의 주체가 구 임대주택법 제6조 제1항이 정한 바에 따라 등록을 마친 임대사업자여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
- 구 임대주택건설촉진법에 의한 임대주택에 해당하는 경우 구 임대주택법 부칙(1993. 12. 27.) 제2조에 따라 ‘임대주택법에 따른 건설임대주택’에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
- 갑이 1988. 5. 19. 다가구주택에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 마친 후 1994. 3. 18. 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제5조에 따라 부동산임대를 사업내용으로 하는 사업자로 등록한 다음
- 부동산에 관한 갑의 사업자등록이 실제로 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행령 제11조 제1항 제3호에 따른 사업자등록에 해당하는지를 구체적으로 심리한 다음
- 그 결과에 따라 갑의 사업자등록이 구 임대주택건설촉진법령에 따른 사업자등록의 요건을 충족하는지를 판단하였어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the person who constructs the relevant housing unit for the purpose of rental and rents it out must be a rental business operator who has completed registration as prescribed in Article 6 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act (affirmative in principle)
• Whether, where the housing unit falls under a rental housing unit under the former Act on the Promotion of the Construction of Rental Housing, it falls under the category of 'a rental housing unit constructed under the Rental Housing Act' pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions (December 27, 1993) of the former Rental Housing Act (affirmative)
• After A completed a registration of ownership preservation with respect to a multi-family housing unit on May 19, 1988 and registered on March 18, 1994 as a business operator whose business consisted of real estate rental pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on the Restrictions on the Ownership of Housing Sites,
• after specifically examining whether A's business registration with respect to the real estate in fact constituted a business registration under Article 11 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Restrictions on the Ownership of Housing Sites,
• A case where it should have then, in accordance with the result thereof, determined whether A's business registration satisfied the requirements for a business registration under the former Act on the Promotion of the Construction of Rental Housing and its Enforcement Decree
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 6. 11. 선고 2017두36953 판결(공2020하, 1388)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Du36953 decided June 11, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 1388)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2020. 6. 11. 선고 2017두36953 판결(공2020하, 1388)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstance would let a person who never completed registration under Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act claim that the house is construction rental housing under that Act?
The Seoul High Court's renewed hearing after 4 September 2025 will show how the registration requirement applies to a business registered under the former Land Ownership Limitation Act, so read the remand judgment with this entry. An amendment to Article 97(1) of the Special Tax Limitation Act, to Article 5 of the Private Rental Housing Special Act or to the registration provisions replacing the former Land Ownership Limitation Act decrees would also call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What special circumstance would let a person who never completed registration under Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act claim that the house is construction rental housing under that Act?” vs Independent “Did the taxpayer's 1994 registration actually satisfy the predecessor rental housing legislation's requirements so that the disputed property qualifies under the transitional provision?”
The primary reading asks generally about exceptions to registration under the Rental Housing Act, while the independent reading asks whether this taxpayer's 1994 registration satisfies the predecessor legislation.
임대를 목적으로 해당 주택을 건설하여 임대하는 행위의 주체가 구 임대주택법 제6조 제1항이 정한 바에 따라 등록을 마친 임대사업자여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 16 January 2025 (2023Nu61907), held that a business registration certificate obtained under the former Land Ownership Limitation Act for the multi-household building was no different from a rental business registration under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act as meant in Article 97(4)(i) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Tax Limitation Act, and that the building was construction rental housing exempt from capital gains tax under the proviso to Article 97(1). On the second ground it held that the requirement to acquire the house and begin letting it after 1 January 1995 governs purchased rental housing only.
Supreme Court standard: Citing Supreme Court Decision 2017Du36953, the Supreme Court held that tax provisions must be read as written and may not be extended or applied by analogy without reasonable grounds, and that clearly preferential exemption provisions are read strictly. Reading Article 2(ii)(a), Article 2(iv) and Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act together, it held that a registration under the former Land Ownership Limitation Act decree alone does not settle the requirement, that the plaintiff and the non-party were likely not rental housing business operators under the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act because their recorded business content showed a 12-household multi-household building, and that the lower court misread the law and failed to examine what it needed to. It reversed the part of the refusal above KRW 107,780,335, remanded it to the Seoul High Court, found no error on the second ground and dismissed the rest of the defendant's appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A house whose builder and lessor was himself registered under Article 6(1) of the former Rental Housing Act, so that no route through the former Land Ownership Limitation Act had to be used.
- Rental housing built and supplied under the former Rental Housing Construction Promotion Act, which the supplementary provision of the former Rental Housing Act deems construction rental housing.
- A dispute confined to whether the requirement of acquiring and beginning to let the house after 1 January 1995 reaches construction rental housing, on which the Supreme Court found no error.
Record verification notes
Set the business registration certificate and its recorded business content, here real property letting of a 12-household multi-household building, against Article 11(1)(iii) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Land Ownership Limitation Act, and look for the Minister of Construction's approval to build 20 or more detached houses or 20 or more households. Fix each provision's version at the ownership preservation registration, the business registration of 18 March 1994, the start of letting on 1 January 1996 and the transfers of 9 March 2015, and note that the remand reaches only the part above KRW 107,780,335.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 조세감면요건에 관한 법규의 해석 기준 [2] 구 조세특례제한법 제97조 제1항 단서에서 정한 ‘임대주택법에 따른 건설임대주택’에 해당하기 위해서는 임대를 목적으로 해당 주택을 건설하여 임대하는 행위의 주체가 구 임대주택법 제6조 제1항이 정한 바에 따라 등록을 마친 임대사업자여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 구 임대주택건설촉진법에 의한 임대주택에 해당하는 경우 구 임대주택법 부칙(1993. 12. 27.) 제2조에 따라 ‘임대주택법에 따른 건설임대주택’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [3] 갑이 1988. 5. 19. 다가구주택에 관하여 소유권보존등기를 마친 후 1994. 3. 18. 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행규칙 제5조에 따라 부동산임대를 사업내용으로 하는 사업자로 등록한 다음 1996. 1. 1. 주택임대 사업을 개시하였다가 2015. 3. 9. 매도하여 양도소득세를 예정신고·납부하였는데, 이후 위 부동산의 양도가 구 조세특례제한법 제97조의 장기임대주택에 대한 양도소득세 감면 대상에 해당한다는 이유로 납부세액의 환급을 구하는 경정청구를 하였으나, 관할 세무서장이 이를 거부한 사안에서, 부동산에 관한 갑의 사업자등록이 실제로 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행령 제11조 제1항 제3호에 따른 사업자등록에 해당하는지를 구체적으로 심리한 다음, 그 결과에 따라 갑의 사업자등록이 구 임대주택건설촉진법령에 따른 사업자등록의 요건을 충족하는지를 판단하였어야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Criteria for the interpretation of legal provisions governing the requirements for tax reduction or exemption [2] Whether, in order to fall under the category of 'a rental housing unit constructed under the Rental Housing Act' as provided in the proviso to Article 97 (1) of the former Restriction on Special Taxation Act, the person who constructs the relevant housing unit for the purpose of rental and rents it out must be a rental business operator who has completed registration as prescribed in Article 6 (1) of the former Rental Housing Act (affirmative in principle) / Whether, where the housing unit falls under a rental housing unit under the former Act on the Promotion of the Construction of Rental Housing, it falls under the category of 'a rental housing unit constructed under the Rental Housing Act' pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions (December 27, 1993) of the former Rental Housing Act (affirmative) [3] A case in which, after A completed a registration of ownership preservation with respect to a multi-family housing unit on May 19, 1988, registered on March 18, 1994 as a business operator whose business consisted of real estate rental pursuant to Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on the Restrictions on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and then commenced a housing rental business on January 1, 1996 and sold the property on March 9, 2015 and made a provisional return and payment of capital gains tax, and thereafter filed a claim for a correction on the ground that the transfer of the above real estate qualified for the reduction of capital gains tax on long-term rental housing under Article 97 of the former Restriction on Special Taxation Act, but the head of the competent tax office refused it, it should have specifically examined whether A's business registration with respect to the real estate in fact constituted a business registration under Article 11 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Restrictions on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and then, in accordance with the result thereof, determined whether A's business registration satisfied the requirements for a business registration under the former Act on the Promotion of the Construction of Rental Housing and its Enforcement Decree
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중에서 피고가 2021. 1. 25. 원고에 대하여 한 2015년 귀속 양도소득세 292,618,250원의 경정거부처분 중 107,780,335원을 초과하는 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, exceeding 107,780,335 won, of the disposition refusing the correction of capital gains tax of 292,618,250 won for the year 2015 that the defendant imposed on the plaintiff on January 25, 2021, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 국세기본법 제18조 / [2] 구 조세특례제한법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제97조 제1항, 구 주택건설촉진법(1995. 1. 5. 법률 제4919호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제33조 제1항(현행 주택법 제15조 제1항, 제4항 참조), 구 주택건설촉진법 시행령(1994. 7. 30. 대통령령 제14349호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조 제1항(현행 주택법 시행령 제27조 제1항, 제2항 참조), 구 임대주택건설촉진법(1993. 12. 27. 법률 제4629호 임대주택법으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 및 공공주택 특별법 제2조 참조), 구 임대주택건설촉진법 시행령(1994. 9. 13. 대통령령 제14381호 임대주택법 시행령으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조의2 제1항(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제7호 참조), 구 임대주택법(2008. 3. 21. 법률 제8966호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 부칙(1993. 12. 27.) 제2항(현행 삭제), 구 임대주택법(2015. 1. 6. 법률 제12989호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제2호 (가)목(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제2호 (가)목), 제4호(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제7호 및 공공주택 특별법 제4조 제1항 참조), 제6조(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제5조 참조) / [3] 구 조세특례제한법(2015. 8. 28. 법률 제13499호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제97조 제1항, 구 주택건설촉진법(1995. 1. 5. 법률 제4919호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제33조 제1항(현행 주택법 제15조 제1항, 제4항 참조), 구 주택건설촉진법 시행령(1994. 7. 30. 대통령령 제14349호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조 제1항(현행 주택법 시행령 제27조 제1항, 제2항 참조), 구 임대주택건설촉진법(1993. 12. 27. 법률 제4629호 임대주택법으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 및 공공주택 특별법 제2조 참조), 구 임대주택건설촉진법 시행령(1994. 9. 13. 대통령령 제14381호 임대주택법 시행령으로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조의2 제1항(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제7호 참조), 구 임대주택법(2008. 3. 21. 법률 제8966호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 부칙(1993. 12. 27.) 제2항(현행 삭제), 구 임대주택법(2015. 1. 6. 법률 제12989호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제2호 (가)목(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제2호 (가)목), 제4호(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제2조 제7호 및 공공주택 특별법 제4조 제1항 참조), 제6조(현행 민간임대주택에 관한 특별법 제5조 참조), 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률(1994. 12. 22. 법률 제4796호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 제1항 제2호(현행 삭제), 제2항(현행 삭제), 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행령(1994. 8. 19. 대통령령 제14363호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제11조 제1항 제3호(현행 삭제), 구 택지소유상한에 관한 법률 시행규칙(1994. 12. 8. 건설부령 제571호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제5조(현행 삭제)
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger