Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan28700 ( July 10, 2012)

Seoul Administrative Court 2013 Jae-gu 14 ( February 13, 2015)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do2969 (No. 22, 2011)

At the time of the transfer of the right to sell housing, it does not constitute one house for one household.

It can be recognized that a member of the association owns another house at the time of the transfer of a right to sell the house and that a right to sell the house has been transferred after a lapse of one year from the date of acquisition of another house. Therefore, the argument that the transfer of a right to sell the house constitutes

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2015Nu1108 Invalidity of a disposition imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2013 Jae-gu 14 ( February 13, 2015)

November 4, 2015

December 2, 2015

1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

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

Effect of Review, Appeal

The first instance judgment is revoked, and the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") confirms that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 16,718,470 won for the year 2006 against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") is null and void.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following judgments, so it is cited in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance court.

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff, at the trial, asserts that the period of retention was calculated by applying the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act relating to the time of acquisition and time of transfer, while the period of retention to calculate the special long-term holding deduction amount under Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7873 of March 3, 2006) from the date of acquisition by the decedent (the husband who died) to the date of transfer by the plaintiff, who is the inheritance, the heir.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment shall be permitted only when there exists a cause under each subparagraph of Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, when the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff fall under such a cause, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Da324, Dec. 8, 1987). The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff are merely erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment subject to retrial, and it does not constitute a ground for retrial under the above Article, and the said grounds for retrial are not legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.