양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review.
A. The Plaintiff acquired the instant apartment on February 6, 198 and transferred it on June 25, 2013, on the premise that the instant apartment constitutes “one house for one household” subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24640, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the same premise that it constitutes “one house for one household” subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
B. The Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff from October 12, 2015 to October 31, 2015; and (b) confirmed that the Plaintiff had been using the instant officetel No. 1322 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) from among seven bonds officetels owned by the Plaintiff other than the instant apartment, the instant officetel is deemed a “house”; and (c) on December 10, 2015, deeming the instant apartment does not constitute “one house for one household”; (d) on the ground that the instant apartment does not constitute “one house for one household”; (e) issued a revised notification of capital gains tax for the year 2013,803,070 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for a trial on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on August 19, 2016.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court by asserting that the instant apartment constitutes “one house for one household” subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax, and that the instant officetel is not a house (2016Gudan29470), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 14, 2017.
E. The plaintiff is the above judgment.