Whether one house for one household is exempt from taxation as a comprehensive transfer;

Even if a single sales contract was prepared, if a house is transferred to nine persons as a unit of sale and purchase, it cannot be deemed that a house was transferred to one person as a unit of sale and purchase, and thus, it is not subject to non-taxation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of One House for One Household)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 16,376,980 on February 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired ○○-1 and 228.7 square meters on the same site on April 27, 1989. On March 2, 1995, the Plaintiff started construction of new housing on the same site and completed registration on June 24, 1995, as the Suwon District Court and Suwon District Court No. 6015 on July 3, 1995, the receipt of which was 6015, on which it was 13.01 square meters (9 households), 13.01 square meters (9 households), 136.725 square meters (2 households), 3 stories, 128.725 square meters (2 households), and 13.01 square meters (2 households) on the 13.01 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. The Plaintiff leased the instant house to Nonparty 1, 200, 10 years from May 16, 1995 to August 30, 2005 to Nonparty 1, 2005.

C. On July 1, 2005, the Plaintiff sold the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant housing and the instant ○-1 large 228.7 square meters to eight persons (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor No. 1), ○○-1 large 228.7 square meters (the sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) was written in only one sheet, and the purchaser’s column was written in eight persons). On September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff implemented the registration procedure for ownership transfer by the Suwon District Court and the 21291 received on September 15, 2005.

On the other hand, the above ○○ and eight persons are not in a family relationship with which they make their living at the same address or same place of residence, and nine persons are the head of another household or a member of a household respectively.

D. On October 31, 2005, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 15,716,460 to the Defendant for a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income of a single house non-taxable high-priced house for one household. The Defendant considered that the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to one-third share of each of the instant houses, and excluded the voluntary payment of the said preliminary return. On October 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was exempt from the transfer of one house in which the Plaintiff resided, and imposed KRW 178,401,250 for the transfer of the remaining house.

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on December 15, 2006, and the Director of Gwangju Regional Tax Office decided to revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 178,401,250 on the ground that the transfer of the instant house does not constitute one house for one household, but the instant house constitutes a long-term rental house under Article 97 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that it constitutes a long-term rental house for ten or more years under Article 97 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

F. Accordingly, on February 1, 2007, the Defendant determined and notified 16,376,980 won of the special rural development tax as the tax base on the said capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. On April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 24, 2007, but was dismissed on July 27, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 72(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act amended on April 23, 1997, when the Plaintiff sells the instant house, and jointly transfers the instant house and its appurtenant land to a share, it shall not be deemed a divided transfer. As such, the transfer of the instant house is a single house for one household, which is exempt from taxation, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of One House for One Household)

Article 155 (Special Cases of One House for One Household)

Article 5 (Tax Base and Tax Rate of Special Rural Development Tax Act)

C. Determination

In the case of transferring a multi-family house under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act such as the instant house, if it is intended to view the transfer of a house for one household under Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof as non-taxation, it shall not be sold to each household, but it shall be transferred to one person on a single sales unit (Article 155 (15) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the above provision shall be regarded as a "multi-family house" in this case. The "multi-family house" in this context is not consistent with the concept of "multi-family house" under the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, but is used in the same meaning as "one house". As seen above, even if the Plaintiff prepared a single sales contract with the above ○○ and eight persons, so long as the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to one person on a non-taxation basis, the Plaintiff's disposal of the instant house cannot be deemed as a legitimate one of the instant houses under Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.