logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017. 07. 12. 선고 2016누76703 판결
2000년 이후에 임대를 개시한 주택은 장기임대주택에 대한 감면적용대상이 아님[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Group-5028 ( October 28, 2016)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho Jae-2015-west-541 ( October 25, 2016),

Title

A house that began to lease after 2000 is not subject to reduction or exemption for long-term rental houses.

Summary

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The part of "the commencement of lease before December 31, 200" in the main sentence of Article 97 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall also be applied to the proviso, and where the lease has been commenced after 201, it shall not be subject to reduction or exemption.

Related statutes

Article 97 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Capital Gains Tax on Long-Term Rental Houses)

Cases

Revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff, Appellant

AA

Defendant, appellant and appellant

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

October 28, 2016

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 21, 2017

Imposition of Judgment

July 12, 2017

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2015, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2015.

35,928,890 won shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from those asserted in the first instance court, but in this court.

There is no further evidence submitted. The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

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

arrow