Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan16810 (29 May 2013)

In addition to inventory assets for housing construction and sales business, housing for residential and rental purposes is recognized as housing.

(The same as the judgment of the first instance court) The new sales business for multi-household housing is ordinarily conducted in the form of sales by household. It is difficult to regard the commission of the entire housing as a new construction and sales by the broker at the time when one year has elapsed since the new construction, and there is no evidence to recognize that it was engaged in the housing construction and sales business in addition to

2013Nu18959 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan16810 decided May 29, 2013

October 30, 2013

December 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on September 7, 201 against the Plaintiff on September 7, 2011 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for the addition to the following paragraphs of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular at this court, or re-convened, the reasons for this court's explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the key house is merely a inventory asset for the Plaintiff’s housing construction and sales business and cannot be considered as a house owned to be considered in the calculation of capital gains tax, and that the Plaintiff should be deemed to have no house owned other than the instant house at the time of transfer of the instant house on March 31, 2010.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s husband B from June 26, 2008, the Plaintiff continued to reside in the housing at issue after completing a relocation report from August 27, 2008; and (ii) the Plaintiff et al. attempted to lease the remaining households except for 101, residing in the housing at issue from April 17, 2008, after obtaining approval for the use of the housing at issue; (iii) 101, the Plaintiff et al., who resided in the housing of 139.23 square meters of the 1st floor (42 square meters) and 46.2 square meters of the 20th floor (14 square meters); and (iv) the Plaintiff’s housing construction and sales business of 200 to 202 square meters of the housing leased by each household (20 to 30.25 square meters of the housing leased by each household).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.