Cho Jae-2018- Daejeon-5098 ( April 10, 2018)

At the time of transferring a house, the plaintiff does not form an independent household with children.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the plaintiff and her children engaged in a separate living, and that the claimant's household has an average annual income of 12 million won from 2012 to 2016, which is less than the minimum cost of living, and it appears to be relatively insufficient income in settling an independent living, etc., the plaintiff does not constitute one house for one household.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2019Gudan10034 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

】 】

○ Head of tax office

June 20, 2019

September 19, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 000 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 21, 2009, the Plaintiff and its AA, a member of the household, together with the head of the household as AA on July 21, 2009, resided in the two-story O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong (hereinafter “instant house”) as follows, and all of the members of the household move to A-dong 00 O-dong O-dong O-dong 00 A-dong O-dong at O-dong at O-dong.

B. The Plaintiff newly built the instant house on October 00, 00, and sold on October 00, 000, and reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on October 00, 000 on the ground that the Plaintiff is exempt from one house for one household.

C. Accordingly, on October 0, 000, the Defendant: (a) at the time of the transfer of the instant house to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff AA at the time of the transfer.

This case's disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on the ground that the plaintiff's living together with the same household constitutes the same household and separately owns the same household, and does not constitute one house for one household (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

D. The plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case, and filed an objection and request for adjudication, but the above request was made.

All were dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4-4, 7-1 through 7-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the Plaintiff’s family relationship with AA and the Plaintiff’s resident registration, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, were living together for the Plaintiff’s nursing and the care of the Plaintiff who received the diagnosis at the end of the period of a new father’s certificate, and taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were living separately and separately for their economic activities and livelihood, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful even if the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s house, even if it constitutes one house for one household, even if it constitutes one house for one household.

B. Determination

The main sentence of Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829 of Feb. 3, 000) provides that "one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 89 (1) 3 (a) of the Act means that where a resident and his/her spouse have one house in Korea as of the transfer date and one household comprised of the family members who live together with them at the same address or same place of residence, and the period of possession of the house concerned is two years (three years in cases of a resident who falls under subparagraph 2 of paragraph (8)) or more, the period of possession of the house concerned is 2 years or more," and that a family member living together means a family member who actually lives together with him/her, and it does not necessarily mean a family member living together with him/her on the resident registration basis, but in light of his/her daily life, it means a unit of living with the same amount of money for living (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu38

He returned to the present case, the evidence mentioned above, and Gap evidence Nos. 2 to 8, 10-1 to 11-2;

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s 1st floor out of the instant housing on October 0, 000 and resided together with the Plaintiff’s 2nd floor at the time of the transfer of the instant housing after the transfer of the housing, and (ii) the 2nd floor was composed of 1 entrance, 3 toilets, kitchens, and one living room, and 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 7th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 6th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 200.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.