양도소득세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On September 25, 1997, the Plaintiff married with B on September 25, 1997, but was married with January 11, 2008.
B. On May 21, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul apartment 1 and 401 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), but transferred the instant real estate to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 8, 2008. However, the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the ground that the instant real estate constitutes one house non-taxation for one household in relation to the transfer of the instant real estate.
C. However, the Defendant: (a) even after the Plaintiff and B divorced on January 11, 2008, owned an apartment building of 102 and 1602 and 7 bonds in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) held at least three houses owned by one household; and (c) on December 3, 2013, issued a disposition of imposition of KRW 178,763,750 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns 22,60,680, additional tax on negligent tax returns 50,293,113, special tax for rural development, special tax for rural development, and special tax for rural development 3,836,905 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
The plaintiff was under the procedure of the previous trial.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 5, 11 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's work in Busan caused severe depressions in B, resulting in confusion between the plaintiff and B, and the divorce between the plaintiff and B is duly formed.
Even if the Plaintiff and B were divorced from a spouse under Article 154(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act even if there is no spouse, it would be against the principle of strict interpretation to interpret that the Plaintiff is deemed the same household in cases where it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff is a de facto divorce, such as making a living together, even though there is no spouse.
Therefore, the Plaintiff was a single house owner at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff has a different premise.