Seoul Administrative Court 2018-Gu -71659 ( April 03, 2019)

Seocho 2018west 1587 ( October 27, 2018)

Whether the registration of ownership is subject to non-taxation requirements for one household where the registration of ownership is cancelled due to the judgment on invalidity of the cause of acquisition.

Although the registration of ownership was cancelled in accordance with the judgment of nullity of the cause of acquisition after the spouse was donated by his/her parents as of the date of transfer of the house, it does not constitute one house non-taxation requirement for one household in case the donation

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Capital Gains)

2019Nu40972

AA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Gudan71659 Decided October 03, 2019

October 23, 2019

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 defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of the capital gains tax and the capital gains tax (including additional tax) belonging to the △△△△△ year, which belongs to the plaintiff.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part concerning "3. conclusion") except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be corrected;

The court's explanation of the instant case is based on the following Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance.

○ 3 pages include “(including additional tax)” on the right side of “△△△△△”.

The following shall be added to the right side of the 5th parallel of "........... ......."

The Plaintiff’s spouse, who is the former owner of the instant donated house, appears to have been charged with various taxes on the instant donated house for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was imposed with relevant taxes, was no longer imposed, and the Plaintiff’s mother was sufficiently aware. If the Plaintiff’s transfer registration of the instant donated house for the reason of the Plaintiff’s spouse’s spouse’s donation without valid intent of donation as alleged by the Plaintiff was completed, it is difficult to readily understand that the Plaintiff’s mother’s mother did not seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case and had maintained the above registration status for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

The following shall be added to the right side of the 5th 5th 10 parallels:

In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s mother continued to enter into a lease agreement on the instant donated house for about 10 years in △△△, after completing the instant transfer of ownership in the court. This seems to be inconsistent with the existing assertion on the Plaintiff’s health status of the mother at the time of the transfer of ownership in this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.