양도한 주택에서 실제 거주하였다는 청구주장이 정당한지 여부[국승]
Whether the request for actual residence in the transferred house is legitimate
In addition to the fact that the plaintiff was not registered as a resident in the transferred house, the transfer house is registered as a resident by a family of five tenants who are not the plaintiff from before the plaintiff acquired the transferred house to the transfer date, and thus the plaintiff's assertion of residence is groundless
Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Scope of one house for one household
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
Defendant’s imposition of KRW 170,496,570 on the Plaintiff on May 16, 2006, of capital gains tax for the year 2005.
The disposition shall be revoked.
.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 1, 200, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○3 apartment complex ○○○○○○○○○○-dong, 48.98 square meters (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred on July 26, 2005.
B. The Plaintiff filed a voluntary report by calculating the amount of capital gains tax only for the portion exceeding KRW 600,000,000, which is the criteria for expensive houses, on the ground that the instant apartment house constitutes one house non-taxation requirement for one household.
C. However, the defendant excluded the application of the non-taxation provisions on one house per household on the ground that the plaintiff had resided in the apartment of this case for not less than two years, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 170,496,570 on the plaintiff on May 16, 2006. The defendant issued the instant disposition of imposition that notified the plaintiff of KRW 170,496,570.
D. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on July 19, 2006 on June 9, 2006, but was dismissed on November 6, 2006.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legality of the instant disposition
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff’s disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant did not meet the residential requirements for at least two years, which is a single house non-taxation requirement, even though the Plaintiff actually resided in the instant apartment from October 30, 2002 to May 31, 2005.
B. Relevant statutes
○ Income tax (hereinafter referred to as “transfer income tax”) shall not be levied on any of the following incomes as referred to in Article 89 of the Income Tax Act:
3. Income accruing from a transfer of such one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (excluding expensive houses whose prices exceed the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree) and the appurtenant land within the area calculated by multiplying the area of land to which the building is built by the ratio as determined by region under the Presidential Decree
Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Scope of one house for one household)
(1) The term “one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 89 (1) 3 of the Act means the case where a household comprised by a resident and his spouse together with the family living together with the same address or same residence (hereinafter referred to as a “one household”) in Korea as of the transfer date, and where the relevant house is owned for not less than 3 years (in the case of a house located in the same urban area, under the provisions of Article 3 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Shicheon-si and the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the period of possession of which is 3 years or longer, and which is designated and publicly notified as a planned area for housing site development. He shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3 of the Housing Development Promotion Act (in the case of a house located in the same
C. Determination
In light of the facts that Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 and witness evidence Nos. 12-1, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, had been registered as a resident of ○○-dong 93 ○○○-dong 93 ○○○-dong 00 ○○-dong 00 ○, not the apartment of this case, within the holding period of the apartment of this case (Evidence No. 5), and the apartment of this case from September 28, 1999 to February 1, 2005, the apartment of this case had been registered as a resident of 4 other persons (Evidence No. 4-1 through 5) and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff actually resided in the apartment of this case for 2 years or more, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff had resided in the apartment of this case for not less than two years is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.