beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2010Gudan19907 ( October 03, 2011)
Case Number of the previous trial
National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0314 (Law No. 14, 2010)
Title
It is not necessarily required to reside with the spouse in the requirement of one house for one household.
Summary
(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) In order to constitute one house for one household exempt from capital gains tax, the resident or his/her spouse must meet the requirements of possession and residence, and it does not necessarily mean that the resident falls under one house for one household only if he/she must reside in the relevant house with his/her spouse.
Related statutes
Article 89 of the Income Tax Act
Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act
Cases
2011Nu1785 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff, Appellant
XX
Defendant, appellant and appellant
Head of Nowon Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Gudan19907 decided May 3, 2011
Conclusion of Pleadings
September 27, 2011
Imposition of Judgment
November 22, 2011
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The order of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be corrected on February 23, 2010 in Paragraph 1 to " February 3, 2010", "the purport of the claim, purport of appeal", and purport of appeal.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 21,567,880 on the Plaintiff on February 3, 2010 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Reasons
The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that "No. 2, No. 3, Apr. 3, 2007, Apr. 27, 2007" and "No. 18, Apr. 30, 2007, Apr. 30, 2007" are as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act," and if so, the plaintiff's appeal is justified as it is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the "No. 23, 2010, Feb. 3, 2010" in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is an erroneous entry "No. 30, Feb. 23, 2010". It is so ordered as per Disposition.