beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Group-3633 (26 August 2016)
Title
The propriety of a disposition imposing capital gains tax on a combined house by deeming that the area other than the house is larger than the area of the house
Summary
It is difficult to recognize that each fifth level of the world among the commercial areas submitted by the plaintiff was used as a residence for the purpose of residence, or that the structure, function, facilities, etc. of the building are in a state suitable for residence as the original residential area, and the residential function is maintained and managed as it is.
Cases
2016Nu67174 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
○ Kim
Defendant, Appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan3363 decided August 26, 2016
Conclusion of Pleadings
March 23, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
April 13, 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 shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 470,652,360 (including additional tax) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2014 shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
○ It is difficult to recognize the 10th of the third instance judgment of the first instance court. Then, the phrase “(the same shall apply even if the Plaintiff’s statement and image of Gap evidence submitted by the appellate court and the fact-finding results of this court’s ○○○○ Dong's inquiry)” is added.
○ In the case of “use” in Part 13 of the 3rd judgment of the first instance court, the following “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”
In addition, "it is difficult to see that it falls under the scope of "house" under Article 154 (3) of the Act on September 9, 2013 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24709).
2. Conclusion
The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed due to lack of grounds.