Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap10031, 2012.13

early 201st century 5103 ( October 16, 2012)

No rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act is not a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act and thus does not constitute a rental house excluding aggregate

In order to constitute a rental house subject to the exclusion of the aggregate of comprehensive real estate holding tax, a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act must be the rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act, and a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act refers to a person registered to run a housing rental business, and the plaintiff does not constitute

2012Nu3075 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, etc.

Park AAA

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap10031 Decided September 13, 2012

April 12, 2013

May 10, 2013

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On October 4, 201, the part of each imposition imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this ruling are as follows: "No. 6 of the first instance judgment", and "no. 2 of the second instance judgment", and "no. 2 of the second instance judgment", and "no. 2 of the second instance judgment", other than adding each of the following.

2. The addition;

(a) (In addition, according to Article 6 (1) of the Rental Housing Act and Article 7 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order to register as a housing rental business operator, the number of units of the constructed rental housing requires two or more households in the case of the constructed rental housing, and in the case of the instant multi-household rental housing, the number of units in the case of the instant multi-household rental housing is too low and low in the case of one household, and in this respect, the plaintiff does not

B. (Plaintiffs, and Defendant 1) voluntarily refused a request for registration of a joint housing rental business operator from the Plaintiff and ParkBB on May 26, 2006, and thereafter made the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff was not registered as a housing rental business operator, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant voluntarily refused a request for registration of a joint housing rental business operator from the Plaintiff and ParkBBB as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as to constitute the exclusion of summing-up under Article 8 (2) 1 of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act in order to constitute the exclusion of summing-up under Article 8 (1) 4 of the Rental Housing Act, and the rental business operator under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Rental Housing Act refers to a person registered for operating a housing rental business under Article 6 of the same Act, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who can be registered as a rental business operator under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act, and the Plaintiff

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.