one household fails to meet the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household;

In determining whether one house for one household subject to non-taxation owns one house for one household, whether there is one house actually used or used for profit or not, is not a requirement.

2018Guhap716 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAAA

DD Head of the tax office

May 4, 2018

May 25, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017, the imposition of capital gains tax for the Plaintiff in 2016 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고의 동생 BBB은 2002. 12. 4. OO O구 OO동 XXX 대 XXX㎡와 그 지상조표제XX호 블록조 슬래브지붕 단층주택 XX.XX㎡에 관하여 2002. 11. 10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 원고는 BBB으로부터 2013. 10. 28. 위 토지 및 주택의 각 1/2 지분(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 2013. 10. 25. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

B. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to theCC (CC) at KRW 207, commercialization,00.

C. On March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff reported that the income from the transfer of the instant real estate constituted non-taxation subject to the transfer of one house by one household. However, on September 1, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the income from the transfer of the instant real estate did not meet the requirements for non-taxation on one house per household, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2016, the capital gains tax, the capital gains tax, the capital gains tax, and the capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 2017, 2017, but was dismissed on January 2018.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from BB around April 2002 in XX,00,000, but only the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 28, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax is unreasonable on October 28, 2013. In addition, the Plaintiff’s possession of 4 bonds from among OOO OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-si Ytel, and thus, it is unreasonable to take the instant disposition that the Plaintiff imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff by deeming it not eligible for capital gains tax exemption.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The acquisition time and acquisition value of the instant real estate

A) According to Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 162(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same), the time of acquisition shall be the date of settlement of the price, but if the date of settlement of the price is unclear, the time of acquisition shall be the date of receipt of registration recorded in the register.

B) As to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate with BB on April 2002 as the date when the Plaintiff liquidated the price of the instant real estate by itself, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to recognize the date on which the Plaintiff liquidated the price. Accordingly, it constitutes a case where the date of the settlement of the price is unclear in determining the acquisition time of the instant real estate, and according to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, according to each of the evidence No. 1-2, it can be recognized that the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 28, 2013 in the name of the Plaintiff as to the instant real estate. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the acquisition time of the instant real estate was October 28, 2013.

C) In addition, according to the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Gap evidence Nos. 8 as to the acquisition value of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the purchase price of the real estate of this case is Z,00,000 won is Z,00,000 won cannot be accepted (On the other hand, in relation to the acquisition price of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the amount less than the acquisition price recognized by the defendant at the time of the disposition of this case is less unfavorable than the plaintiff.)

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the time of acquisition and acquisition is without merit.

2) Whether the transfer of one house by one household constitutes a non-taxable object

A) According to the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4, the Plaintiff’s possession of OO-dong Otel head, OO-ho head, O-ho head, and O-O head in addition to the instant real estate at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate. As such, the instant real estate’s transfer income is not subject to non-taxation under Article 89(1)3(a) of the former Income Tax Act.

B) Even if the Plaintiff, like the Plaintiff’s assertion of domestic affairs, did not acquire rent income due to the Plaintiff’s failure to lease the said officetels, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations by blocking the tax requirements or tax exemption requirements under the principle of no taxation without any justifiable reason, barring any special circumstance, should not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any justifiable reason. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998). As such, it is only required to determine whether the Plaintiff owns one house for one household subject to non-taxation, and Article 89(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 154 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act only requires whether the Plaintiff owns one house for one household subject to non-taxation, unless there are cases where the Plaintiff actually uses or gains profit-making, it cannot be interpreted that the Plaintiff’s assertion alone constitutes the subject of non-taxation on one house per household.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the date of acquiring the instant real estate on October 28, 2013, with the acquisition value as the Z or Z million won, the transfer income of the instant real estate is not subject to exemption from capital gains from one household, and thus, the instant disposition that corrected and notified the capital gains tax 36, capital gains tax, capital gains tax, and capital gains tax, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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