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

The cancellation shall be revoked.

A. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff sold to Nonparty A a building of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government** Ground 5 (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 1.1 billion in the purchase price.

B. On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on capital gains tax by applying the non-taxation of one house for one household, among the instant buildings, to the Defendant. On September 14, 2017, the Defendant excluded the application of non-taxation of one house for one household on the ground that part (five square meters; hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) of the two floors, other than the 3, 4, and 5 floors of the instant building, is actually used as a house, and the number of floors used as a house is not more than three floors, and thus, constitutes multi-household houses, not multi-household houses with three floors (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on March 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant building is not a house, it constitutes a multi-family house. Even if the substance of the instant building is a house, it is merely a change into a house in violation of the public book, and thus, is subject to administrative disposition such as compulsory performance or restitution, but it is against the principle of no taxation without law to evaluate the instant building as a multi-household house different from the public book.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant key building is a house

The issue of whether the building constitutes “house” as prescribed by the Income Tax Act ought to be determined by whether the building actually used for residence regardless of the usage classification of the building injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu584, Sept. 8, 1987; 2004Du14960, Apr. 28, 2005). With respect to this case, there is no dispute over the second floor of the building including the issue of this case, but the second floor of the building in the public record is the second floor of the building in this case, but it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s second floor of the building in this case was 78.21 square meters in total, and approximately 16.5 square meters in the building in this case was 200 square meters in the area of the building in this case and the building in this case was 100Du1661, Feb. 16, 201.

2) Whether it violates the principle of no taxation without law

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s evaluation of the instant building as a house and the instant disposition cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of no taxation without law. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.