beta
(영문) 수원고등법원 2019. 09. 18. 선고 2019누10852 판결

이 사건 건물을 폐가로 보아 주택수에서 제외할 수 있는지 여부[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court 2018Gudan8552 ( October 10, 2019)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho Jae-2018-China-1223 (2018.05)

Title

Whether the building of this case can be excluded from the number of houses in view of the closed price

Summary

(1) The building of this case is deemed to have been in a situation where it can be used as a house if it is repaired at any time in a situation suitable for residence in light of its basic structure, function, etc., even though the building of this case was under a considerable deterioration due to the lack of human life. Thus, the building of this case shall be deemed to constitute a house as prescribed by the Income Tax Act.

Related statutes

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Cases

2019Nu10852 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Appellant-Appellants

○ ○

Defendant, Appellant

Appellant-Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Gudan8553 Decided October 10, 2019

Conclusion of Pleadings

.08.28

Imposition of Judgment

oly 2019.18

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the disposition by the defendant on October 0, 2017, which exceeds KRW 000 (including additional tax) of capital gains tax belonging to the year 2017 against the plaintiff, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ 5th page 16 is difficult to cut off “(16).” The Plaintiff, at the trial, applied for the appraisal of the date of the first creation of the above site photographic file, but the said site photographic file was replaced and the said site photographic file was withdrawn on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have the original copy of the above site photographic file.”

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.