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

Cheong-gu Office

In June 12, 2013, the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff entered into the instant 2-G 1-2 multi-family house on May 19, 2006 with 200, and entered the instant 2-G 1-2 multi-family house on August 30, 2007, 1/4 of OB 104-3 large 485 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the land before the instant subdivision”) and entered the ownership transfer registration on May 20, 2006 on the Plaintiff’s 2-1-2 multi-family house owned by 0G 20, 104-3 large 24, 242.9 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”). The Plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer registration on September 19, 2007 between the Plaintiff and 2-1, 204, 200, 104-4, 204, 204, 204, 204, 40, 201.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff and EE have economic ability to maintain their livelihood independently due to their own fixed income, each purchase and operation of their own vehicles, each of various insurance premiums, communication costs, and hospital expenses, and credit card is also used for each party. Since the apartment of this case is divided into three rooms and two toilets and two toilets and different households whose livelihood is different from the plaintiff and EE, the apartment of this case should be exempted from one house for one household, but the disposition of this case on different premise should be revoked illegally.

B. Relevant statutes

The facts of recognition are as stated in the attached Form 3.3.

1) From January 21, 200 to 84.78 square meters for exclusive use, the Plaintiff and E together resided in the instant apartment. On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report under 202 of the instant apartment on January 18, 2012, but again filed a move-in report on the instant apartment on September 18, 2012. From May 1, 2012, E resided with E and was unmarried as 27 years of age at the time.

2) The Plaintiff received real estate rent from the instant housing as OOO members in 201 and OOO members in 2012, and received a survivor pension in 2011 and OOO members in 2012, and earned earned income in the first half of 2011, OO members and 2012. E acquired earned income in the first half of 2011. E passed a police officer examination on April 29, 2010, while working in the OOOO members and 2012.

3) On August 18, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) succeeded to the O3OOOO OE on August 18, 2006; and (b) on January 15, 2012, EE purchased OsOO OE from hH, who purchased the OsOOE on January 20, 2012.

4) 이 사건 주택 양도 당시 원고는 II해상 JJJ개인용 자동차보험, KK생명 LLL암보험, MM생명 365일 다보장보험, MM생명 NNN연금보험에 가입하여 보험료를 납부하고 있었고, 우EE는 II해상 JJJ개인용 자동차보험, MM화재 PPP보험, II해상무배당QQQ운전자보험에 가입하여 보험료를 납부하고 있었으며, 원고와 우EE는 통신비를 각자 납부하였고, 각자 자신 명의의 신용카드를 사용하였다.

5) The Plaintiff and E together resided in the apartment of this case, and the gas costs and management costs were borne by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 32, Eul evidence No. 2 (including the branch numbers in the case of additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) According to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 24638, Jun. 8, 2013; hereinafter the same), where one household comprised of a resident and his/her spouse together with a family member living together with the same address or same place of residence has one house in the Republic of Korea as of the transfer date, and where the period of possession is two years or more, income tax is not imposed on capital gains as one house for one household. The above provision refers to a family member living together with the same address or same place of residence under the same provision, but it does not necessarily mean a unit of living with the same household under the resident registration card, and thus, it is difficult to determine whether the Plaintiff and his/her family member living together with the same address or same place of residence within 183 years or more.

A) The Plaintiff, as the mother of E, has resided in the instant apartment from January 21, 200 to the E and the instant apartment. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the period during which the Plaintiff actually transferred to the instant apartment house and actually resided in the instant apartment house is limited to three months from January 18, 2012 to April 30, 2012, and was residing in the instant apartment as of the date of the transfer of the instant apartment house.

B) EE was 27 years of age without a spouse at the time of the transfer of the instant multi-family house, and earned income from 2010 was commenced, while the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the real estate rental business any longer by transferring the instant multi-family house, although the real estate rental income from the instant multi-family house was most the income.

C) It is difficult to view that the instant apartment is a single-story, the area of which is 84.78 square meters and three rooms, and that it is a structure for the Plaintiff and EE to lead an independent life.

D) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff bears gas costs and management expenses of the apartment of this case, and the Plaintiff appears to have no particular awareness on the issue of the purchase cost of food materials or the cost-sharing of the apartment of this case owned by E, the Plaintiff and E can not be deemed to have used each of the banks by the Plaintiff and E, and the payment of insurance premiums, communication costs, and card costs by possessing each of the vehicles and paying each of them for the same livelihood.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.