Whether a toilet or warehouse registered as a house on the public register, but actually provided as a unit of a single residential life together with the main building for residence falls under the land appurtenant to the house of one household subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax;

Where a building is registered as a house on the public register, but actually used as a toilet or warehouse is provided as a unit of one residential life pursuant to the economic usage as a whole with the main building for residence, it shall be deemed as part of a single residential building as an appurtenant facility for the utility and convenience of this building. Therefore, the site of the above appurtenant building is the site of the residential building, which is a site of the residential building subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act (i)

Chographer

Director of the District Office

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 6,537,30 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 1992 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of taxation; and

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the argument in Eul evidence 2, on December 8, 1990, the plaintiff filed a registration of transfer on the ground of consultation with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the 476-2, 331 square meters, 476-4, 476-4, and 784-1, 475-2 and 476-2 of the above 475-2 and 476-2 of the land annexed to one household, on the premise that capital gains tax is not imposed on the above land, and on the land attached to the above 475-2 and 476-2 of the building site, the plaintiff shall be deemed to be subject to taxation on the 1,675-2 and 176-1, 294 square meters of the building site.

2. Illegality of taxation disposition

As to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant tax disposition was lawful on the ground of the above disposition, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant tax disposition was unlawful because the instant building was used for toilets and warehouses, and it was merely the first building used for his residence and the appurtenant building located within the Korea-style fence, and thus, the instant building site for the second building was attached to one house for one household. However, the Defendant asserted that the instant tax disposition was unlawful on the ground that the said land does not constitute the land attached to one house for one household, and that it did not correspond to the land attached to one house for one household.

Therefore, according to Gap evidence No. 4-3, the fact that the building No. 2 of this case was registered as a house on the building management ledger may be acknowledged. However, in full view of Gap evidence No. 4-2, Gap evidence No. 7, witness testimony, and witness testimony at the abandoned ship, the plaintiff can purchase the land within the fence No. 475-2, 746-2 and 4 of the above site No. 746-2 and 746-4 of the building site where the road site of this case was located (the land category was changed to the site on August 14, 1982) and the fact that the building No. 2 of this case was registered as a house on the above 475-2 site of this case from January 1, 197, and newly constructed the building No. 784-1 within the fence No. 782, Dec. 1, 1982; and newly constructed the building site of this case and part of the building No. 475-476-1 and the building site of this case No. 47676. 74-6.

According to the above facts, even if the building No. 2 was registered as a house on the public register, it was provided as a unit of a single residential life pursuant to the economic usage as a whole with the building No. 1 used as the main building for the purpose of residence, and this shall be deemed as part of a single residential building as a whole as an incidental facility for the utility and convenience of the building No. 1, and therefore, the building site No. 476-2, which is the above building site, shall be deemed as a site for the above residential building, and it shall be deemed as a land attached to one house for one household subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax, and thus, the tax disposition of this case is unlawful, provided that the defendant considers the above building site No. 476-2 as not falling under the

3. Conclusion

Thus, as above, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the illegal taxation disposition of this case is reasonable, and this is accepted and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge)