Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-29470 ( October 14, 2017)

Cho Jae-2016-west-2382 (Law No. 19, 2016)

It is confirmed that an officetel held at the time of transfer was used for residence, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes one house for one household.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s officetel possessed at the time of the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes one house for one household as it is confirmed that it was used for residential purposes.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu5888 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 22, 2017

December 6, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court in the Gu office shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on December 4, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the following parts: therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, "Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14960 Decided April 28, 2005" is added to "Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14960 Decided April 28, 2005" of the fourth 12th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as the "the second e.g., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e., the second e.

The concept of "in all different concepts" in Part 5, 9, has been written in the same manner as "the criteria for judgment are different."

Then, the "the determination of whether it falls under the scope" in Part 5, 17 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof is a provision for the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax of a house acquisitor, and therefore, the "the confirmation of the existing house subject to reduction or exemption" by the head of the competent Gu is also intended for the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax at the time of the transfer of a house after the acquisition of the house by the house acquisitor, not for the exemption of the transfer income tax at the time of the transfer of the house after the transfer of the house by the house acquisitor. As such, the defendant's disposition of this case where the instant officetel is regarded as a house under the Income Tax Act and imposing the transfer income tax pursuant to the Income Tax Act is not contrary to the principle of trust protection or the good faith

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.