early 2012west 5022

In order to be eligible for non-taxation for one house for one household, all members of the household are not required to reside.

It is unlawful for the Plaintiff to dispose of the transfer income tax by deeming that the residence of all members of the household is necessary unless there is any unavoidable reason, such as school attendance and disease, etc., that part of the Plaintiff did not reside in one household even if he/she had resided in the instant house for at least five years, and transferred only one house and meet non-taxation requirements.

Article 154 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan18967 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

leAA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

November 28, 2013

December 5, 2013

1. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on October 2, 2012 against the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax of 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of disposition;

"A. The plaintiff, on April 18, 2002, leased OO-dong 562 BB 102 Dong 404 (hereinafter "the house of this case") from O-dong 102 BB 404 (hereinafter "O-dong 102"), and resided after completing resident registration, on January 14, 2005, transferred the above house to O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-U-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-U.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Relevant statutes

Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act provides that one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree and any income accruing from the transfer of land annexed thereto shall not be subject to capital gains tax, and Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23887, Jun. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "one house for one household shall mean that a household comprised of a resident and his/her spouse together with his/her family members living together with him/her at the same address or same place of residence shall have one house in Korea as of the date of transfer, and the period of possession of the relevant house shall be three years or more, in cases where a constructed rental house under the Rental Housing Act is acquired and transferred under subparagraph 1 (proviso) of the same Article, the period of residence from the date of lease of the relevant constructed rental house to the date of transfer of the relevant house shall not be subject

(5) As seen earlier, if the Plaintiff had resided in the instant house for not less than five years, and only one house was transferred on the basis of the above transfer date, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant house was stipulated as follows: ① The first generation period under the proviso of Article 154(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree is not less than five years; ② The phrase “all members of the instant house” under the proviso of Article 154(1)2(b) of the Enforcement Decree is stipulated as follows; ② The phrase “one household” under subparagraph 1(1) of the Enforcement Decree is that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant house is not against the principle of no taxation without the law, and thus, it is unreasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant house is against the principle of no taxation without the law, and that it is against the principle of no taxation without the law that it is necessary for all residents to reside in the instant house and his spouse to live together with the other family members who did not have been subject to the proviso of No. 154(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

A claim shall be accepted on the basis of the reasons therefor.