2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

It is so decided as per Disposition.

A. On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred a multi-family house (hereinafter referred to as “multi-use house” in this case) on the ground of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (Seoul) to the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association of the Housing Development in the North Asia-do, and did not file a transfer income tax on the ground that the instant multi-use house is subject to non-taxation as one house for one household. At the time of the transfer of the instant multi-use house, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff owned a non-exclusive house on the ○○○○○○○-ro, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, and thus, constitutes two houses owners of one household.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 2013, 2013. After re-auditing the actual owner of an unauthorized house located at ○○○ City, “The tax base and tax amount are corrected according to the result of re-audit by the Defendant following the judgment, the said unauthorized house owner was found to be not the Plaintiff but the said unauthorized house owner.

C. On October 2013, the Defendant: (a) decided to reduce capital gains tax by deeming the remainder as one house for one household; and (b) the Plaintiff as one house for the remainder, excluding the 71.66m2 and 71.66m2 of underground floors (branch floors, general restaurants) where the use on the building ledger is a neighborhood living facility among the instant combined-use houses; and (c) the Plaintiff shall be subject to reduction of capital gains tax.

The transfer income tax for the year was corrected and notified as ○○○○○○ (including additional tax for failure to report, ○○○○, and additional tax for failure to report) (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”) (including additional tax for failure to report”), and the remaining part of the disposition of imposition of transfer income tax for the Plaintiff on ○○ on 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, each entry of Gap1 or 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The 1st floor and the 1st floor of the Dual Use Housing in this case are neighborhood living facilities. However, the 1st floor (the 1st floor) underground is a residential building used by the plaintiff's father and wife, the 1st floor is a residential building, and the 1st floor is a residential building used by the plaintiff's husband and wife. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful even though the entire Dual Use Housing in this case

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

Whether a building constitutes one house for one household and satisfies the requirements for non-taxation of capital gains tax should be determined by whether the building actually used as a residence regardless of the classification of the use of injury in the building. Since this is a non-taxation requirement, barring any special circumstance, the taxpayer bears the burden of proof. In light of the overall purport of pleadings in the testimony and video of evidence A5 through 12 (including a serial number) and in the testimony of Kim Jae-deok, the Plaintiff’s ○○ and the husband’s ○○ and the wife’s ○○ and the husband’s ○○ and the wife’s ○○ and the Plaintiff’s ○ and the husband’s ○ were residing in the first floor of a house concurrently used in the instant case, and there is no counter-proof. Accordingly, the Defendant’s instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked by unlawful means.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified.