2. The litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OO,OO, orOO(including additional taxes) for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2015 is revoked.

A. On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired from MaBB, the Odong * Odong * OOB 401, and transferred the said house at Sungnam-si on December 11, 2009, and did not report and pay the transfer income tax by the deadline for filing the transfer income tax.

B. On September 13, 2012, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff from the application of the non-taxation of one house for one household on the grounds that the Plaintiff constitutes a parent BB member who already owns two houses under the age of 30 when at the time of transfer, and determined and notified KRW O,OO, andO00 for the transfer income tax for the year 2009.

C. On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on January 22, 2015, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided on March 6, 2015 that the Defendant’s notice of tax payment against the Plaintiff should

On September 1, 2015, the defendant revoked the above disposition in accordance with the above decision and again decided and notified O,OO, andO0 won (including additional tax) for the plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 30, 2015, but was dismissed on March 2, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap No. 1, 2, 3, 16, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant house, the Plaintiff resided with NBB while living together with NB, and was earned income as wages, insurance allowances, etc. at the time of transfer of the instant house.

Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of non-taxation for one household as a member of the parent BB. Therefore, the instant disposition was made on the premise that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements of non-taxation for one household.

B. Determination

Article 89 (1) 3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014); Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010); Article 89 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that where a household comprised of a resident and his/her spouse together with his/her family members living together with him/her at the same address or same place of residence has one house in Korea as of the date of transfer, it constitutes one house non-taxation requirement for one household; and Article 154 (2) 1 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016) provides that "cases where the resident has no spouse" or "where he/she can maintain his/her own the house or land at least the minimum cost

The fact that the Plaintiff was under 30 years of age at the time of transfer of the instant house, and that the Plaintiff’s mother BB owned another house does not conflict between the parties. Accordingly, whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household constitutes a case where the Plaintiff’s income is more than the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, and it can maintain an independent livelihood while managing and maintaining the Plaintiff’s house

In Article 89 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014); one house for one household (excluding high-class houses the value of which exceeds the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree) prescribed by Presidential Decree among non-taxable capital gains; and land annexed thereto, a building shall be built.

The "income accrued from the transfer of land within the area calculated by multiplying the scale by the rate prescribed by the Presidential Decree by region by the area fixed." The taxpayer has the burden of proof to the effect that "one house for one household and the land annexed thereto" meet the non-taxation requirements of capital gains tax, barring special circumstances. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 14 and Eul evidence Nos. 14 and 2, the plaintiff was operated from March 30, 2007 to June 13, 2008, and the plaintiff reported the tax office with the business income of 1,352,217 won as of May 31, 2008. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the above evidence and the overall purport of arguments, it is difficult to acknowledge that the plaintiff had resided in the National Basic Living Security Act for 208 and 2009, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had resided in the housing of this case at the time of the transfer of the house of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.