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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax of 2007 on September 1, 2013 is revoked.

"A. On February 7, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired a house located in OO-Gu O-dong 205-48 (hereinafter "the instant house") from O-O-dong O-dong 205-48, and on December 10, 2007, O-O-si did not transfer the said house to O-O-O-O on the ground of a consultation on the acquisition of public land, and did not report and pay capital gains tax even after transferring the said house."

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The legality of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, at the time of the transfer of the instant house, was in possession of the total income from a private teaching institute in 2007, research and study expenses of the university, extracurricular expenses, and rent-making revenue, etc., at least the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, and maintained an independent living under the management and maintenance of the said house. Therefore, the instant transfer of the instant house constitutes one house for one household, which is exempt from taxation.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant statutes

"One house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 89 (1) of the Income Tax Act recognizes special cases concerning non-taxation on income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree, and "one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree means that a resident and his/her spouse together with the family members who make a joint living at the same address or same place of residence has one house in Korea as of the date of transfer, and even if he/she has no spouse under paragraph (2) of the same Article, if the relevant resident's age is 30 or more years old, the income under the Income Tax Act can maintain an independent living while managing and maintaining the house or land, the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act is at least

The following facts are acknowledged if the evidence above is added to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6:

(A) Until February 3, 2005, immediately before the acquisition of the instant house, the Plaintiff lived with his parent as a member of the civil-government apartment set forth in the OO-dong O-dong OCC apartment. From February 4, 2005 to March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff was the head of the household who was to receive the said house from the mother-friendly OB, and transferred the house to the 136-6 house of OG Dong-dong 136-6 (hereinafter referred to as the "GG-dong house") in the name of the head of the household under his resident registration, and after March 4, 2009, the details of the transfer from the O-dong O-dong O-dong OF apartment, O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 2, 1907 to the 106 GG 2,206.

(C) At the time of acquiring the instant housing, the Plaintiff was unmarried as 22 years of age at the time of transfer and as 25 years of age at the time of transfer. On March 1, 2005, the Plaintiff was incorporated into the OO university’sO department on August 31, 2007, and was enrolled in the OO university graduate school from September 1, 2007 to February 26, 2010.

(D) Data on the details of the Plaintiff’s income in 207. ① A certificate of employment was submitted to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff paid the Institute’s mandatory medical treatment expenses each month from December 1, 2006 to May 30, 2007 under the name of the representative of the III Private Teaching Institutes. ② A credit card company’s total amount of tax credit was deposited six times from March 2007 to October 2007 into the Plaintiff’s OJ account. ③ A credit card company’s total amount of tax paid to the Plaintiff’s OB from September 2007 to December 2007 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of tax credit cards paid to the Plaintiff’s 00 OB from 200 to 2000 to 2000 to 2000 to 200, 2000 to 200, 200 to 20,000 to 200 OPE’s account.

(F) Under the National Basic Living Security Act, the average monthly minimum cost of a single-person household as of 2007, as an OOO member, reaches OO members in an annual conversion amount.

(3) Determination

Unless there are special circumstances that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for non-taxation for one house for one household, the burden of proof exists to the taxpayer. In light of the following facts based on each of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s act of living independently from his parents at the time of the transfer of the instant house constitutes a “one household for the application of non-taxation for one house for one household”, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise. (A) The time when the Plaintiff transferred the instant house from his mother to GGdong, corresponds accurately with the date when the Plaintiff donated the instant house from his mother, and (2) EE, which verified the Plaintiff’s residence as the owner of GGdong, is related to the Plaintiff’s mother, and there is no objective data to confirm the actual residence of the Plaintiff in addition to the confirmation of his residence, and ③ it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s act of living with the Plaintiff for one year or more from the Plaintiff during the transfer period of the instant house, and in full view of the Plaintiff’s relation with the Plaintiff at the time of transfer of the instant house, it is difficult to recognize.

(B) In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following: ① University research and study expenses and extracurricular expenses among the income statements asserted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to regard the Plaintiff as income under Article 4 of the Income Tax Act; ② In the case of lecture medical expenses at a private teaching institute, it is difficult to determine the authenticity of the report on objective financial transactions or the payment of wages other than the certificate of employment of the private teaching institute; ③ Lease earnings are regarded as the subject of income; ③ it is not only the Plaintiff’s income but also the Plaintiff’s income; ④ it is only the 20th class students at the time of the transfer of the instant house; and the attached privateD was subject to income deduction for the Plaintiff’s education expenses and medical expenses, etc., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s income under the Income Tax Act at the time of transfer of the instant house was above the prescribed minimum cost of living, or

(C) Furthermore, in light of the Plaintiff’s attending school, the contents of the instant housing lease agreement, and the payment relationship for rent, etc., it does not seem that the Plaintiff had been able to manage and maintain the said house and to maintain an independent living.

(4) Sub-determination

In the same argument, the disposition of this case on the premise that the housing of this case is not one house for one household of the plaintiff is just and without any errors.

3. Conclusion