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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 232,607,835, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2014, shall be revoked.

A. On November 4, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the land of 00-Gu, Seoul and its ground houses (hereinafter “instant real estate”) around November 4, 1982, and transferred on October 5, 201, but did not report the transfer income tax on the instant real estate.

B. On February 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as a house on the ground that xB owned by the Plaintiff’s wife was actually used for the actual residence; and (b) decided and notified the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 232,607,835 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 32,571,285 and additional tax of KRW 37,180,122) calculated on the instant real estate by deeming the Plaintiff as two houses for one household; (c) the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on April 7, 2014, but the said request was dismissed on August 12, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 18, 20 evidence, Eul 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s wife had each of the instant officetels, and the Plaintiff’s wife UB owned the instant officetels. BB registered the instant officetel and the x-Dong x-dong x-type x-office as the location of the business place. The UB leased the instant officetel to the IncheonCC on February 18, 2010 by designating the instant officetel as the deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000 and the lease period of KRW 24 months. The CC, as a teacher, was not used for the purpose of residence, for the purpose of research, such as seeking a school plan, etc. necessary for the class as a teacher, and was not used for the instant officetel. Although the Y made a move-in report on the resident registration in the instant officetel, it was merely for the security of the deposit money. This is unlawful for the Defendant’s main purpose of convenience housing, not for the instant officetel’s main purpose of residence.

2) The tax notice of capital gains tax in the instant real estate is unlawful by omitting the principal capital gains tax amount and the calculation basis thereof, and the additional tax amount and the calculation basis thereof.

3) Since the UB has fulfilled all the liability to pay the instant officetels, such as business income and value added tax, it constitutes double tax payment to impose the instant transfer income tax in relation to the instant officetel.

4) The plaintiff has been holding the real estate of this case for more than 10 years, and it is illegal that the defendant did not apply the special deduction for long-term possession in disposing of the real estate of this case.

5) In calculating capital gains by converting the acquisition value into the conversion value, the Defendant shall deduct the estimated deduction amount from the necessary expenses. The amount deducted by the Defendant is not short of the amount.

6) The Defendant made the instant disposition around February 4, 2014. The instant disposition was unlawful as a result of a huge increase in the burden of arbitrary delay and the Plaintiff’s additional tax. Moreover, as the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax, imposing additional tax on negligent tax, apart from imposing the additional tax on negligent tax, it was unlawful as it violates the principle of no taxation without the law, substance over form, and good faith.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant officetel is a house

“A) In a case where a person who transfers a house owns another building, whether the other building constitutes “house” under the Income Tax Act ought to be determined by whether the building actually used for residence regardless of the usage classification of injury to the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu584, Sept. 8, 1987; 2008Du21768, Jul. 22, 2010); or (b) whether the instant officetel’s injury to the building is a neighborhood living facility is a dispute between the parties.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), the instant officetel has a form in which convenience facilities, such as toilets, air conditioners, gas bags, air conditioners, air conditioners, and laundry season, are installed in basic specifications, and has an independent dwelling. AcheonCC leased the instant officetel from the Plaintiff’s wifeB on February 26, 2010 to January 5, 2012, and it is recognized that the instant officetel was actually used as a residence after filing a move-in report from February 26, 2010 to January 5, 2012.According to the above facts of recognition, the instant officetel falls under a house under the Income Tax Act as a building actually being used for residence, regardless of its registered purpose.

2) Whether there was an error of omission in disclosing the type of additional tax and the basis for calculation of tax amount

A) In cases of a tax item imposing capital gains tax for each taxable period, such as capital gains tax, the tax base for the year to which the tax was reverted, the basis for calculation of the tax amount, and the basis for calculation of the tax amount should be specified in the relevant tax notice. There is no basis to demand that the relevant taxpayer state the substantial basis, route, details, etc. for calculating the amount of tax, such as the subject matter of taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du22850, Sept. 29, 201). Provided, that where the principal tax and additional tax are to be imposed together by a single tax notice, the relevant tax amount and the basis for calculation should be separate from the principal tax and the additional tax. In addition, where multiple kinds of additional tax are to be imposed, the relevant tax amount should be separated from each other by stating the basis for calculation of the amount of tax and the individual tax per se. Therefore, if a taxpayer entered only total amount of additional tax without disclosing the type and basis for calculation of the amount of tax as additional tax, it is unlawful (see, e.

B) With respect to the instant case, it can be recognized that only KRW 232,607,830 of transfer income tax is stated on the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice and the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice and the Plaintiff’s tax payment slip Nos. 18. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole: (a) the Defendant’s tax payment notice form used pursuant to the entire purport of the entries and pleadings as follows; (b) other than the indication of tax payment notice and receipt for tax payment and payment slip for tax payment; (c) the Plaintiff’s tax payment notice and receipt for tax payment and payment slip for tax payment agency are parts of the Defendant’s tax payment notice form; (d) the Defendant’s tax payment notice separately stated the calculated tax amount and estimated tax amount for tax payment; and (e) the Defendant appears not to have any defect in the principal tax and additional tax payment notice separately from the principal tax and the additional tax amount for tax payment; and (e) the Defendant’s objection to the instant tax payment notice does not appear to have impeded each of the instant tax payment notice.

3) Whether to pay double tax

According to the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 9 (including each number), it is recognized that BB paid rental income tax and value-added tax with respect to the instant officetel. However, the above imposition disposition of income tax and value-added tax with respect to B and the disposition imposing capital gains tax with respect to the Plaintiff is different from taxpayers, taxable objects, taxable grounds, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed as double tax payment.

4) Whether the special deduction clause applies to the long-term holding

According to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2002; hereinafter referred to as "Income Tax Act"), assets subject to the tax rates under Article 104 (1) 4 through 10 and assets subject to Article 104 (6) shall be excluded from assets subject to special deduction for long-term holding.

However, since the real estate of this case is owned by assets falling under Article 104 (1) 6 of the Income Tax Act (house falling under two houses for one household as prescribed by Presidential Decree), the tax rate under Article 104 (6) of the Income Tax Act is applied to the transfer income of the real estate of this case by the Plaintiff until December 31, 2012, the real estate of this case should be excluded from the assets subject to special deduction for long-term holding.

5) Whether the amount of deducted necessary expenses is appropriate

According to the evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the defendant calculated necessary expenses to be deducted pursuant to Article 97 of the Income Tax Act, and it is difficult to view that there was any error in the calculation.

6) Whether the disposition imposing additional tax is unlawful

A) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be aware of such obligations, and thus, it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be exempted from imposition if there are justifiable grounds for not being able to cause the failure of the taxpayer to perform his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4089, Apr. 15, 2005). In addition, the tax authority can be able to impose capital gains tax for a limited period of 40 years, such as where the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent acts do not constitute justifiable grounds for not violating his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007).

On the other hand, if a taxpayer fails to report and pay all or part of the legitimate capital gains tax at the time of the return on the provisional return on the profits accruing from the transfer, and fails to make the final return on the legitimate tax amount by the deadline for the final return on the transfer income tax, at least when disposing of the transfer income tax after the deadline for the final return on the transfer income, an additional tax on negligent tax return and an additional tax on additional tax may be imposed on a legitimate tax amount exceeding the amount voluntarily reported and paid (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu14551, Jun. 30, 1995; 96Nu18465, Aug.

B) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff is a person who has failed to report the transfer income tax of this case, and as long as the Defendant rendered the instant disposition within the exclusion period, the Defendant may impose the Plaintiff the additional tax on negligent tax return and the additional tax on negligent tax payment under the Income Tax Act.

Meanwhile, solely on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable ground that the Plaintiff was not able to neglect his/her duty, and there is no reason to deem otherwise that the principle of trust and good faith

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.