양도소득세경정거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On January 16, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired 301, B apartment, 1305, and 1305 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred the instant apartment to C on December 15, 2015. At the time, Mad, who is a person living together with the Plaintiff at the same time, owned 101, 404, Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant secondary apartment”) and owned the instant apartment, thereby Article 89(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1) (hereinafter the same shall apply) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26763, Dec. 28, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply).
B. Around November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification with the Defendant to the effect that “D is a member of the household whose livelihood is different, and thus returning KRW 33,440,751 to capital gains tax by applying the non-taxation provisions for one household,” but the Defendant notified the Defendant of the decision to refuse the Plaintiff’s request for rectification on January 12, 2017.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(c) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on April 5, 2017. However, the Defendant dismissed the objection on May 11, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 22, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 5, 2017. [Grounds for recognition]: (a) the Plaintiff did not dispute any dispute; (b) the Plaintiff’s 1 through 5, 16, 16, 1, 1, 1 (including Serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes an independent household under a non-taxation provision on one house for one household is whether the criteria for determining whether the independent household constitutes the same livelihood or not.
D, however, although the plaintiff and his domicile and residence are the same, the lease income of KRW 600,000 per month and the national pension income of KRW 35,390,000 per month from the lease of the second apartment of this case.