early 201st century0426 (Law No. 27 September 27, 2011)

Since the whole building is recognized as a neighborhood living facility, a disposition that partially regarded as a house is illegal.

In light of the fact that the whole building was used as a place of business by registering the whole building as a place of business and operating a restaurant even in a room where the whole building was living in the building, and that the whole building was used as a place of business by running the business, and the property tax was heavy on the premise that the neighborhood living facilities.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2011Gudan31362 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

LAA et al.

Head of Sejong District Tax Office et al.

August 28, 2012

September 26, 2012

1. On December 15, 2010, the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 by the head of Mapo Tax Office against Plaintiff LA and the imposition of KRW 000 for the capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 by the head of Mapo Tax Office against Plaintiff YB on December 15, 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 7, 1997, the plaintiffs acquired and owned the real estate of this case to non-party DDD companies (hereinafter "non-party company") on the non-party 1 (hereinafter "non-party DD companies") in Jongno-gu Seoul OOdong 00, 138.9 square meters of the above ground and 76.02 square meters of the above ground buildings (hereinafter "the building of this case", and "the real estate of this case" when referring to land and buildings. The shares of the plaintiffs are 1/2 each.), and reported and paid 00 won each of the real estate of this case to non-party DD companies (hereinafter "non-party DD companies") on March 10, 208, and reported and paid 200 won each of the transfer income tax belonging to 208.

나. 그러나 피고들은 2010. 12. 15. 원고들에 대하여， 이 사건 건물은 단층건물 3동 (A동 39.67㎡， B동 19.82.㎡， C동 16.53㎡)으로 구성되어 있는데， 그 중 A동을 주거용 이라고 하면서 A동과 그 부속토지를 하나의 주택으로 보고 2008년 귀속 양도소득세를 아래와 같이 각 증액 경정ㆍ고지(이하 원고들에 대한 처분을 합쳐 '이 사건 당초처분'이 라 한다)하였다가，원고들의 경정청구에 의하여 원고 최AA는 000원으로， 원고 장BB은 000원으로 각 감액(이하 이 사건 당초처분 중 각 감액되고 남은 원고들의 부분을 합쳐 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다)되었다.

(1) Plaintiff LA

① The director of the tax office of the defendant Sejong District Tax Office, while the plaintiff lowestA is a third house owner for one household, excluded the special long-term holding deduction, applied the heavy taxation rate of 60%, and notified 00 won of the capital gains tax for the year 2008.

② On November 8, 2011, Plaintiff LA filed a request for correction on November 8, 201, and accordingly, the transfer income tax amount was reduced to KRW 000 (the initial amount - 000 won deducted).

(2) Plaintiff AB

① The Head of Mapo Tax Office excluded the special long-term holding deduction for the Plaintiff headB, and the Plaintiff headB constituted two houses for one household, and applied the heavy taxation rate of 50%, and notified the correction and notification of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax for the year 2008.

② On November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff headB filed a request for correction on November 8, 201, and accordingly, the amount was reduced to KRW 000 (the initial amount 000 - the deducted amount 000).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 8, and evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The building of this case owned by the plaintiffs is a commercial building as a living facility, and only A of the building of this case cannot be viewed as a house separately. Therefore, the disposition of this case that deemed A of the building of this case as a house is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 17, 2003, the Plaintiffs leased the instant real estate to the FF as KRW 000, and the monthly rent business income (from April 2004).

(2) On December 29, 2003, NF registered its business with the trade name of "H charcoal Prohibition counter", and the business area of the building of this case as the whole area of the building of this case, and around that time, after changing the structure of the building of this case, the building of this case was installed at A Dong, and the main bank for the place of business was installed, and the B Dong was changed into the guest housing structure, and then closed its business on August 11, 2008.

(3) Since 2005, the Jongno-gu Administrator investigated the use status of the instant building, judged the entire instant building as neighborhood living facilities, imposed property tax, and imposed charges for compelling execution on the portion illegally constructed since 2006 on the instant building on the premise that the instant building was a neighborhood living facility.

(c)

(4) Around March 10, 2008, the non-party company implementing the O-dong redevelopment project confirmed that the purpose of the instant real estate was used as a store, and paid KRW 000 of the operating compensation amount on the premise that the entire building of this case was used as a place of business by the lessee to the old FF couple.

(5) NF couple resided in the building of this case and used B and C Dong as its business site, and installed a kitchen for a shot in part of A, installed food washing equipment, food materials cooling equipment, and gas stuff, and operated business in A where there are many customers.

[Ground of Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence 3 through 7, and evidence 9 through 13 (including each number), evidence, each evidence evidence, and the testimony of this interference, and the fact inquiry results to the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of this Court, and the purport of the whole argument

C. Determination

건물이 소득세법 제89조 제1항 제3호， 같은법 시행령 제154조 제1항에 정한 주택에 해당하는지 여부는 건물공부상의 용도구분에 관계없이 실제 용도가 사실상 주거에 공하는 건물인가에 의하여 판단하여야 하고， 건물의 구조ㆍ기능이나 시설 등이 본래 주 거용으로서 주거용에 적합한 상태에 있고 주거기능이 그대로 유지ㆍ관리되고 있어 언제 든지 본인이나 제3자가 주택으로 사용할 수 있는 건물의 경우에는 이를 주택으로 보아 야 할 것이나(대법원 2005. 4. 28. 선고 2004두14960 판결 참조)， 그 건물이 주거용인지 영업용인지 여부는 전체적으로 판단하여야 하고，또한 건물의 일부를 상시 주거용으로 사용하는 것이 아니라 영업용 건물에 딸린 방을 주거용으로 사용하였다고 하더라 도 그것이 영엽을 위하여 또는 영업장으로 함께 사용하는 경우에는 영업용 건물로 봄 이 상당하다 할 것이다. 이 사건에서 보건대， 위 인정사실 및 위 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정，① 이 사건 건물의 임차인 가족이 이 사건 건물에 거주하기는 하였으나， 임차인은 이 사건 건물 전체를 사업장 면적으로 하여 사업자등록을 하였고， 이 사건 건물에서 'HH숭불막창구이'라는 상호로 음식점을 운영한 점，② 원고들도 임차인이 이 사건 건물 전체에서 음식점을 운영하는 것을 전제로 임대를 하였고，윌 임료로 사업수 익금의 30%를 받기로 한 점，③ 임차인은 이 사건 건물에서 영업 하기 위하여 일부 구조를 변경하였는데， 임차인이 주거로 사용하였다는 A동 부분에는 일부만 방으로 되어 있고， 주방에는 영업을 위한 식기세척기 등을 설치하였으며，그와는 별도로 주거용을 위한 화장실， 출입구， 주방은 따로 설치하지는 않았던 점，④ 서울특별시 종로구청은 이 사건 건물 전체가 근린생활시설인 것을 전제로 재산세를 중과하여 왔고，건축법 위반사항에 대하여도 2006년경 현장 확인을 거쳐 이 사건 건물이 근린생활시설인 것을 전제로 이행강제금을 부과하여 온 점，⑤ 임차인도 이 사건 건물의 매수인으로부터 이 사건 건물 전체에 대하여 영업을 하고 있는 것을 전제로 영업보상금을 지급받은 점，⑥ 임차인이 이 사건 건물의 일부에 거주하였다고 하더라도 손님이 많을 경우에는 방에도 손님을 받는 등 영업을 하는 동안에는 이 사건 건물이 전체적으로 영업장으로 이용되고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점，⑦ 그 외 피고가 이 사건 건물 중 A동 부분을 주택으로 보고 양도소득세를 증액경정하게 된 경위， 원고들과 임차인의 관계 등의 사정을 종합하면，이 사건 건물은 전체적으로 근린생활시설이라고 봄이 상당하다.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the building A cannot be viewed as a house among the buildings of this case, the disposition of this case that reported differently is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted for each reason, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.