양도소득세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Considering that the Plaintiff, a member of the Plaintiff’s assertion B and one household, co-ownership of the instant housing as their respective shares, it cannot be deemed that one household owns multi-family housing, as well as the legislative intent of Article 99-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction intending to revitalize the real estate market through reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, B’s trust at the time of purchase of the instant housing, the developments leading up to the Plaintiff’s donation of some of the instant housing, the details leading up to the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the donation contract, and the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not cancel the registration of ownership transfer due to the interested parties, in the case of a newly-built house subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 9-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation Restriction, even if B, the first purchaser, who is the spouse
Therefore, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.
B. According to Article 99-2(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a project undertaker who supplies a house of a newly-built house, a house unsold in lots, or a house of one household, has transferred the said newly-built house, etc. in compliance with the requirements other than those stipulated in the above provision, the capital gains tax on such capital gains shall be reduced or exempted.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff couple's "one house for one household" as stated in Article 99-2 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is not acquired, but the "B" house for the first time.