One house for one household

In light of the fact that there is doubt that it was intended to temporarily separate from the households for the purpose of evading capital gains tax, that it was difficult to communicate with the high-income society, family-friendly society, light survey, etc. and that the resident registration was moved, and that it is not possible to submit objective financial data on the rent deposit for the leased apartment, etc., the imposition of transfer tax is legitimate

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Scope of one house for one household

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 66,610,300 on October 1, 2003 by the defendant against the plaintiff on October 1, 2002 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a party member should explain this case are as follows: 6, 7, 9, 12 '3 '6, 2 '6, 7, 9, 12 '6, 9, 12 '6, 9, 12 '6, 1, 2, 7 '6, 12 ', 1, 7 ', '4 ', 9 ' and 9 ', '31 and '30' are added to 5 '30 ', 19 ', ', 5 ', 19 ', ' and 31 ', ', 5 ', 19 ', 5 ', 19 '.

[Supplementary Use]

① On October 25, 2001, when the Plaintiff actually resided in ○○ apartment, it would be reasonable from the empirical rule to move the resident registration to ○○ apartment in ○○○ city that actually resided in ○○○ apartment that did not move the Plaintiff’s resident registration one month prior to the transfer of the instant apartment to ○○ apartment that did not actually reside in ○○○○ apartment, but rather, it would be reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s moving the resident registration to ○○○ apartment (the wife of ○○○○○, in receipt of the written objection, was an employee of the office of ○○○○○○○○○, in receipt of the written objection), and re-transfer the instant apartment to ○○○dong apartment after eight months would not temporarily separate it from ○○○○ apartment in order to avoid capital gains tax on the instant housing, and it is highly doubtful that the Plaintiff’s moving of the instant apartment to ○○dong apartment again due to inconvenience in contact such as Go Jong-dong and light survey.

② The Plaintiff asserted that he leased an apartment at ○○○○○ city with the name of Kim○○, and failed to submit objective financial data on the source of KRW 100 million for the lease deposit;

③ At the time, ○○○○○○○○○○-dong 827 Do 105 201 Do 105 Do 201, which was owned by ○○○○○○ apartment, and thus, in order to keep his own animals, it appears that there was no need to rent a room installed up to 13,000 Do 13,000 Do 13,000 Do 105 Do 201.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.