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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 201***,269,400 on September 12, 201 by the former Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 12, 201**,269,40.

A. On December 23, 200* 200* 1.20, the Plaintiff acquired a multi-family house *****-29 on May 29, 200* the lease business operator under the Income Tax Act, and registered as the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on March 12, 200* the lease business operator under the Rental Housing Act. (b) The Plaintiff acquired a long-term rental house * 146-** * 146-* * * 1401 (hereinafter this case’s transfer house * 1.20,000) on December 20, 200, and transferred the instant rental house * 30,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2013 * 16,000,000 won under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act * 153,16,000,000 won under the Rental Housing Act * 16,03,15,015,16,014,0

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time of 2006 when the Plaintiff registered a rental business under the Income Tax Act, five or more houses were leased to be registered as a lessee under the Rental Housing Act. The instant rental housing was merely one unit of multi-family house, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act. Although the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act was amended so that a lessee may be registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act even if one or more houses were leased thereafter, the Plaintiff was later aware of it, but the Plaintiff was registered as a rental business operator on March 12, 201. In other words, the Plaintiff was not registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act due to the Plaintiff’s lack of registration as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act on the instant rental housing at the time of the transfer date of the instant transferred house, and the disposition that the instant rental housing was not deemed a long-term rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff had not been registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act on the instant rental housing at the time of the transferred house was unlawful against

B. Determination

1) Article 15 (19) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same) provides that, in cases where one household which owns a long-term rental house or a house residing in Korea transfers a house owned for two or more years, a long-term rental house shall not be deemed a house and shall be deemed a house subject to capital gains tax. Meanwhile, Article 167-3 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that a house for long-term rental shall be leased by a resident who registered a business under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act or a house rental business under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act as a house for lease business under the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25193, Nov. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and thus, Article 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act provides that the number of houses for long-term rental business is more than 5 or more than 216 days.

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