도시정비형 재개발사업의 합리적 과세방안에 관한 연구

도시정비형 재개발사업에 적용할 합리적 과세방안을 연구했다.

Recently, many landowners in city center like Yongsan, Myeongdong, and Jongno have been demolishing old commercial buildings. They then designate their land as redevelopment zones according to Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments and take on the role of project implementer for urban maintenance-type redevelopment project. This allows them to construct new buildings on the redeveloped land.

Additionally, despite the significant increase in property value resulting from the construction of new buildings, many landowners, who are the implementers of urban redevelopment projects, choose to acquire and retain a substantial portion of the buildings for the purpose of offsetting the necessary project expenses. They then lease these buildings to others and collect rental income.

However, there have been numerous cases where these landowners seek to benefit from acquisition tax reduction (or exemption) benefits under the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, claiming that the acquired offsets fall under the category of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for developmental outlay for urban redevelopment projects implemented by themselves.

The reason for these cases is believed to be the limited research and exploration of reasonable tax measures specifically addressing urban maintenance-type redevelopment projects and lands allotted by authorities as compensation for development expenses under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments. While there has been significant research on taxation issues related to redevelopment associations or association members, the same level of research has not been conducted for urban maintenance-type redevelopment projects. This lack of research has resulted in tax system uncertainties, making it challenging to find appropriate tax solutions for this context.

Therefore, by identifying the issues surrounding landowners and lands allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay as implementers of urban redevelopment projects under the Urban Redevelopment Act and addressing the rationale for the permitting regime, providing solutions to these issues could help resolve the tax uncertainty in urban redevelopment projects. This, in turn, could contribute, albeit to a certain extent, to the organization and advancement of the taxation system in this context.

Furthermore, considering the enactment of the General Act on Public Administration in 2021 and the implementation of regulations regarding the permitting system, it is reasonable to interpret that the land provided for housing construction projects under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments falls under the category of land subject to separate taxation under local tax laws. The main contents of this paper are as follows.

Firstly, this paper aims to investigate the tax-related issues and propose reasonable solutions regarding the legal nature of landowners as implementers of urban maintenance-type redevelopment projects and whether these landowners can retain lands allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for their own use and profit purposes. To achieve this, a comparative study was conducted with Japan's legal system, which operates under a similar legal framework as ours, to identify the problems and derive improvement measures in the tax domain.

In other words, a landowner who serves as the sole implementer of an urban redevelopment project holds a dual legal status where two roles coexist. Therefore, during the process of the urban maintenance-type redevelopment project, the landowner, as the implementer, acquiring land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for the first time should be treated as a collective entity in public law that substitutes improvement project association.

Therefore, in the case of a landowner who serves as the implementer, even if there is no clear dissolution process like a temporary organization such as a redevelopment association, at the very least, the landowner, as the implementer, should be granted acquisition tax reduction or exemption benefits only under the condition that the offsets are sold to a third party through a liquidation process concerning the acquired real estate.

Secondly, this paper aims to examine the correlation between the presence of management disposal plans under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments and the acquisition tax reduction for land allotted by the authorities in recompense for developmental outlay. It also seeks to provide a direction for a reasonable interpretation as to whether the acquisition tax reduction provisions can be applied when land allotted by the authorities in recompense for developmental outlay are sold under private contract.

In other words, the reason why a landowner, who is the sole implementer, did not establish a management disposal plan may be that there was no need to allocate rights as there were no other landowners besides the sole landowner. Therefore, unless it can be acknowledged that the portion acquired beyond the existing land and buildings was accounted for as offsets or reserved land according to the management disposal plan, it should be regarded as an increase in value resulting from the redevelopment project from the perspective of the ownership of the original land and buildings.

As a result, the obligation to pay liquidation funds and the corresponding acquisition tax based on the liquidation funds should be imposed. However, it is challenging to find a reason to apply the concept of sales under the Act on Building Sales to the sale of buildings that are predominantly newly constructed under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments, which excludes buildings that fall under the scope of housing and welfare facilities according to the Housing Act. Thirdly, this paper aims to determine