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

On July 26, 2016, the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, which was imposed on the Plaintiff by the former head of the Gu.

A. On September 13, 1967, the Plaintiff acquired the real estate listed in Attachment 1 List No. 1, and on September 25, 1967, acquired the real estate listed in Attachment 1 List No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estate"). On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to the headA (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of this case").

B. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 5,504,020 upon the instant transfer on the premise that each of the instant real estate constitutes “one house for one household.” On July 26, 2016, the Defendant decided and notified ○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, as the Plaintiff’s spouse, owned the instant officetel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) as ○○○, and △△△, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○○, ○○, and ○○○, as ○○, as ○○, (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 6, 2017, upon filing an objection on October 17, 2016, but was dismissed on May 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for disposition for the following reasons.

(i) argument that the “one house non-taxation regulation for one household” is subject to application of the “one house non-taxation regulation.”

It is reasonable to view that a separate household is formed because the marriage relationship has disappeared at the time of the transfer of this case after a couple or a legal couple who completed the marriage report on January 4, 1969, or Kim-ri, Kim-ri et al. left in around 1992 and move separately from each other. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of each of the instant real estate constitutes one house non-taxation provision for one household.

(ii) argument that it is subject to the “Temporary 2 House Non-Taxation Regulations” for one household;

On November 15, 2010, Kim Do-won acquired the instant officetel, but the instant officetel was transferred to the instant officetel on January 30, 2013. Since the instant officetel was used as the “business facilities in the public record”, it should be deemed that the instant officetel was acquired from January 30, 2013, from the date of the move-in to the instant officetel by Kim Gun-won, the instant officetel was transferred to the instant officetel. However, the Plaintiff transferred the instant officetel to the Plaintiff on July 27, 2015, the acquisition of which was within three years from January 30, 2013, the date of the move-in to the instant officetel by Kim Gun-ri. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s transfer of each real estate to the Plaintiff constitutes the subject of “the second house non-taxation provisions for one household temporarily.”

B. Determination

1) Determination as to whether “one house non-taxation regulation for one household” is subject to application of “one house non-taxation regulation”

A) In determining whether a resident’s “one house for one household,” which is a non-taxation requirement for capital gains tax, the fact that the resident’s spouse is a spouse does not ask whether the resident’s spouse is living together and actually living together with the resident, and the resident’s spouse constitutes a “one household” solely based on the fact that the resident’s spouse is the spouse. Even if a spouse is legally married at the time of transfer of the house, even if the marital relationship is deemed to substantially distress, it cannot be said that the spouse’s spouse alone constitutes a “one household” under the principle of strict interpretation of the tax law (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du17463, Feb. 23, 199). Article 154(1) and (2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017) provides that, in principle, a resident is deemed to form one household together with the resident’s spouse, and that the resident or spouse’s spouse is to constitute the same domicile or household.

B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate on July 27, 2015, and according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and according to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as to the instant case, the Plaintiff and Kim Dong-dong on January 4, 1969: (a) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce against the Kim Dong-dong in the △ District Court on June 20, 2016 (Seoul District Court △△ Branch 2016Mo○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on August 8, 2016.

2) Determination as to whether a “temporary housing non-taxation provision for one household” is subject to the “temporary housing non-taxation provision”

A) In determining whether a building constitutes one house for one household, which is a non-taxation requirement for capital gains tax, the issue of whether a person who transfers another building owns the other building shall be determined by whether the other building actually uses as a house regardless of the usage classification of the injury to the building. Even if the building is temporarily used for other purposes than a residence, its structure, function, or facility is in a state suitable for residence as an original residential purpose, and the residential function is maintained and managed as it is, and at any time, it shall be deemed a house for a building that a person or a third party is able to use as a house (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14960, Apr. 28, 2005). Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that a house is transferred to one household as a non-taxation object for capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8443, Dec. 23, 2005).

B) In full view of the above-mentioned facts and the following circumstances revealed by the testimony of the witness BB, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the instant officetel was a house as a building actually being used for a residence, and that Kim △-won acquired the ownership of the instant officetel on Oct. 11, 2010.

Therefore, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff cannot be accepted on a different premise.

(1) On October 11, 2010, Kim Dong-ri, △△△, the instant officetel, completed the transfer registration to the instant officetel on January 30, 201 (No. 6) after completing the registration of ownership transfer by the △△△△, which was received by △△, △△, △△, in relation to the instant officetel (No. 2-2), and on January 30, 2013 (No. 2-2). Kim Dong-ri, Kim

(2) On April 1, 2016, the Defendant confirmed on-site the instant officetel that: (a) the instant officetel was installed with a kitchen and a bath room and has a structure for residential life; and (b) in the officetel, the instant officetel confirmed that there were residential households, such as beer and table, and household goods, such as beer and table, and clothes, and glaps, that are actually used by the Kim-ri in the instant officetel (Evidence 5).

(3) On April 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) visited the instant officetel management office; (b) confirmed that the instant officetel was not registered as a business; and (c) did not have any history of having registered the instant officetel as a business place (Evidence B No. 5).

(4) According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the Seoul Special Self-Governing City, Kim-Governing Province, on April 23, 201, has leased the instant officetel as "5 million won, monthly rent of KRW 650,000,000 from April 30, 2011 to April 29, 201," and bothCC have no record of business registration with the instant officetel as its place of business and the fact that bothCC were wage and salary income earners at that time. In light of the above recognized facts and the structure of the instant officetel, bothCC appears to have actually used the instant officetel as residential purpose.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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