2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s rejection of correction of KRW 76,671,386 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2015 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed Kim, △△△△△ in January 3, 2017 is revoked.

A. On March 10, 2015, in the possession of 7 rental housing bonds (hereinafter “instant rental housing”) as indicated below, the deceased Kim○○ (hereinafter “the deceased”) transferred the two-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) with 000-0 ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 00-0 ○○○-dong, as indicated below.

B. After that, on April 20, 2015, the Deceased filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant housing by applying one house non-taxation for one household, and on September 16, 2015, the Deceased died on December 18, 2015 after filing a revised return on capital gains tax by excluding non-taxation on one house for one household on September 16, 2015.

C. On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) asserted that the instant housing was exempt from capital gains tax under Article 155(19) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and filed a claim for correction with the Defendant on December 2, 2016, the Defendant rejected the said claim for correction on January 3, 2017, on the ground that three of the instant rental housing was not registered as a rental housing in the ○○-gu Office pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Rental Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff et al., dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 13, 2017, but was dismissed on April 12, 2017.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The business registration is a business operator’s duty to cooperate with the tax authority so that the tax authority can take tax administrative convenience, and the deceased objectively confirmed the rental of the instant rental housing by reporting the report on current status of report on current status of current status every year. Moreover, since the deceased was notified from 2005 that the instant rental housing does not meet the requirements for exclusion of summing-up, the issue of this case could not be doubtful that the instant rental housing was not registered as a rental business operator with the ○○ Office. Therefore, excluding the instant rental housing from the long-term rental housing on the ground that the instant rental housing was not registered with the ○○ Office was illegal

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that clearly deeming the provisions as preferential in terms of the requirements for tax reduction and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du9537, Jan. 24, 2003; 2008Du7830, Oct. 23, 2008).

2) Determination

Article 155 (19) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26763, Dec. 28, 2015) provides that where a household which owns a long-term rental house or a house residing in Korea transfers a house residing in Korea for two or more years, if the house for long-term rental as of the date of transfer is registered and leased as a rental house pursuant to Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act, the house for long-term lease shall not be deemed a house, and the house for long-term lease shall be deemed as having only one house residing in Korea. In light of the relevant legal principles, in order for a person who owns a house for long-term rental or a house for residential in Korea to claim special cases of one house for one household following the transfer

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the deceased registered a house Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the instant rental house as a rental house and registered it as a ○○ Office on February 11, 1998 at ○○ Office on January 26, 1998. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant rental house was registered as a rental house, or that ○ Office omitted an application for registration of the deceased's rental house of the instant rental house. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the registration of rental house under the Rental Housing Act and the registration of a business under the Income Tax Act are different from the purpose and purpose thereof, and that the registration of a rental house under the Rental Housing Act is not deemed to be illegal on account of the fact that the plaintiff et al.'s assertion is all asserted, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition violates the principle of substantial taxation.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion