Incheon District Court 201Guhap5531 ( February 1, 2012)

early 201J 2103 ( October 11, 201)

The application of heavy tax rates to three housing owners per household is legitimate.

It is insufficient to recognize that the mother who falls under a family member at the time of the transfer of a house was registered as a resident at the time of the transfer of the house, and that he was residing in a place other than resident registration. Therefore, the heavy tax rate applied to the case of three houses at the time of the transfer of the

2012Nu22715 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

AA

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap531 Decided June 21, 2012

July 16, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax OOO on January 4, 201 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1.A personal seal.

The reasoning of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal under the following 2.2. Thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

Part 3, 9, 5, and 13, 3, 9, 9, 5, and 13, 5, 5, and 5, 5, 1,

C. Determination

(i)whether it constitutes three houses for one household;

(A) Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) defines one household of "one house for one household" under Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) as "one household comprised of one household of which the resident and his spouse together with the family members who share the same livelihood at the same address or same place of residence," and the concept of the above one household also applies to three houses for one household of "three houses for one household" under Article 104(1)2-3 of the Income Tax Act.

In addition, Article 6 (1) of the Resident Registration Act, and Article 6 (1) of the △△△ and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu provide that a person (hereinafter referred to as "resident") who has his/her domicile or residence (hereinafter referred to as "place of residence") shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of this Act for the purpose of residing in the area under his/her jurisdiction for at least 30 days, and Article 8 of the △△△△, and the registration of

Meanwhile, Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "one house for one household prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means that a resident and his spouse have one house in Korea as of the transfer date and one household comprised of the family members living together with the same address or same place of residence (hereinafter referred to as "one household") as of the date of the transfer (in the case of a house located in the new urban area in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Shicheon-si, the Shicheon-si and the Shimsan-si, which are designated and publicly notified as a planned area for housing site development under Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the period of possession of the house in question is three years and more than two years, and the period of possession under paragraph (5) includes the person who has been enrolled in △△△, and the person who has been living in the new urban area from the date of residence under the provisions of paragraph (4) of the same Article to the date of transfer under the provisions of the same Article, and his spouse, lineal ascendant and descendant or sibling under the provisions of the same paragraph (1).

(B) If a house owner is registered on the resident registration card that he/she had resided in another domicile other than the above house during the period of possession of the house, he/she shall be presumed to have resided in another domicile other than the above house as stated on the above resident registration card (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu772, Mar. 11, 1986).

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1. 20, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4, it constitutes "family as the plaintiff's mother," and the △△△△△ was registered as a resident of OO-Gu OO-dong 206-7 on November 7, 2005, OHHHHHHH 1-3 Dong 105 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff had not been registered as a resident of this case at the time of the transfer of 2008, OO-dong 702-7 GG apartment 18 and 303, and that the plaintiff had not been registered as a resident of this case at the time of the transfer of 206, O-dong 16, and 206, 206, 200, 206, 200, 206, 206, 206, 16, 200.

(C) On November 7, 2005, the Plaintiff, and BB were residing in the OO-Gu OO-dong 206-7 house, and CCC, the head of the Plaintiff, was in need of money, and the owner was able to obtain a loan as security, and the owner was in need of the loan. BB did not actually reside in the apartment house in this case and tried to make a move-in report again on the above O-dong 206-7 house, but on February 17, 2006, the Plaintiff failed to obtain a move-in report from the above OO-dong 206-7 house to the above 206-dong 207 house's moving-in house with the above O-J27O JJ 27, 207 house's moving-in house at the auction, and on May 206, 2006, the above OOJ20-dong 207 house's moving-in house at the auction.

However, according to the BB Report (Evidence No. 12), while BB made a move-in report to the apartment of this case, it was intended for the creditors to avoid the direction of the creditors, and the time of the moving-in report to the Korea JJ is also about 2007, and it is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s above assertion. In addition, the Plaintiff did not clearly explain the fact that BB moved to the JJ and did not make a move-in report to its place.

The statements prepared by KK et al. (A) are merely limited to the fact that BB had resided in the JJ without specific date, and that the management expenses of the JJJ were paid by CCC, the husband of BB, the husband of the JJ, and the above statements or the management expenses accounts for community credit cooperatives (A evidence No. 8) were submitted on August 24, 2007, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize that BB had resided in any place other than the JJ or the instant apartment at the time when the Plaintiff transferred the instant house, and there is no other evidence to support this point.

(D) If so, at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant apartment on December 29, 2006, BB had resided in the instant apartment and constituted “one household as the same household under the Income Tax Act as the Plaintiff and the same household under the Income Tax Act. At the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff owned the instant apartment, and BB owned the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff and BB owned the instant apartment, and the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes three houses for one household, and it is legitimate for the Defendant to apply the transfer income tax rate of three houses for one household. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

(2) Whether the cost of remodeling construction is recognized as necessary

(A) According to Article 97(1)2 of the r Income Tax Act, Article 163(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 97(1)3 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, expenses paid for the alteration, improvement or convenience of use of the transferred asset fall under the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value such as capital expenses, and the expenses paid for that purpose

(B) The Plaintiff asserted that DD had been engaged in remodeling construction of the instant housing, and △△△△ was the Plaintiff’s wife, and the supplier stated the tax invoice (Evidence A7) submitted by the Plaintiff as the basis for the above remodeling construction cost, but the tax invoice submitted by the Plaintiff to the same purport as “MMM,” and the trade name of “LLL” was changed to “MMM,” as of November 1, 2006, and the sales details of the housing remodeling construction of the instant housing were not found at the time of the 2006 return of value-added tax, and it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not submit financial data or other materials to verify the amount of the construction cost, and that it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had paid the aforementioned remodeling housing construction cost, and that the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that it was inconsistent with the witness evidence Nos. 16 and No. 27, and that it was difficult to support the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence No. 27, and evidence No.7.

(C) If so, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone spent OOE as the remodeling construction cost of the instant housing as alleged above, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case should be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.