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

A. On April 29, 199, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed OO 00-0 large 718 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant site”) and the second floor neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter referred to as “joint-use housing”) above the instant site, and transferred a house combined with the instant site to the Korea Land Corporation in 913,908,000 won and 313,261,810 won on the ground of purchase of public land on September 28, 2009.

B. The multiple-use housing of this case is divided into one floor (180.38 square meters; hereinafter referred to as "the part of a store") and two floors (142.31 square meters; hereinafter referred to as "house part"), a public restaurant. The housing part has four rooms, a room, a kitchen, a toilet, etc., and is connected with the outside stairs of the building without an internal passage. The Plaintiff's family directly operated a restaurant with the name "BB BB ridge" in the part of the store, which is located on the housing register.

C. On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax of KRW 65,417,433, and KRW 433 of the site area calculated in accordance with the calculation in accordance with the ratio of the size of the store part among the instant multiple-use houses (401.362 square meters) among the instant multiple-use houses.

C. After that, on February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff used the part of the store as a bedroom (10.95 square meters; hereinafter “the key part of this case”) and the stairs (12 square meters) among the stores with respect to the transfer of a house for the combined use of this case as of February 4, 2010, since the real use of the house is a house and eventually, the area of a house for the combined use of this case (165.26 square meters) is larger than that of a part other than a house (157.43 square meters) and thus, a revised return was filed to seek refund of KRW 62.327,429, for a house for combined use between the instant land and the instant case, pursuant to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009).

D. However, as a result of the on-site verification on December 15, 2010, the Defendant determined that the size of parts (168.31 square meters) other than those of the instant multiple-use housing (168.38 square meters) out of the instant multiple-use housing is larger than that of the part of the housing (154.31 square meters), and on February 10, 201, the Defendant adjusted capital gains tax on the instant housing as KRW 70,590,768 to KRW 70,00 (the instant disposition referred to as “the instant disposition”), and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 5,173,30 for capital gains tax for the year 209, and paid KRW 5173,330

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 4, 201, but was dismissed on June 30, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the case of multiple-use housing, the housing and other parts are distinguished not from the building ledger, but from the actual usage. The instant combined-use housing is divided into two different housing units. Since there is a lack of room between the Plaintiff and son, human resources were located rarely, and hot water was 24 hours high, the Plaintiff has been living in the 1st floor, and managed the part of the store. Thus, the instant controversial part (10.95 square meters) used only for real residence in addition to the stairs used for exclusive use in the house (12 square meters) shall be deemed housing units, and the area used for the housing is 165.26 square meters (i.e., 142.31 square meters on the 2nd floor + 12.12 square meters on the 15.43 square meters on the 15.43 square meters on the 2nd floor (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10.2982 square meters on the 2nd floor) and the total area of 10.31 square meters on the 25.1222 square meters on the Gu residential area (the same).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 154 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, if a building other than the above house is combined with a non-permanent house, and if the size of the house is smaller than or equal to that of the non-permanent house, the part other than the house is not deemed a house. The above provision provides that the non-permanent house is de facto offered for the purpose of using the house regardless of the use classification or the construction of the house or the change of the purpose of the use of the house (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Du10367, Aug. 18, 192; 2002Du6019, May 13, 200). It is difficult for the plaintiff to find that the non-permanent house was used for the purpose of the non-permanent house construction and the non-permanent house construction of the non-permanent house, and there is no possibility that the non-permanent house was used for the purpose of the non-permanent house construction.

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.