Gwangju District Court 201Guhap4862 ( October 17, 2012)

early 2010 Mine3538 ( October 28, 2011)

Where a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is acquired without any inevitable reason, the special provisions on one house shall not apply to one household.

(1) Where a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is acquired by acquiring a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area without any inevitable reason while holding the house located in the Seoul Metropolitan area, and a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is transferred to a local area due to unavoidable reasons, such as working conditions, etc., and is transferred, special provisions on one house for one household shall not apply.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2012Nu569 Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax

XX

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011Guhap4862 Decided May 17, 2012

August 16, 2012

August 30, 2012

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on July 16, 2010 against the Plaintiff on July 16, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the "for living together with the employer-parent" of No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "for living together with the employer-parents", and the plaintiff's new assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment, except for addition of the following determination as to the plaintiff's new assertion in the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff asserts that he acquired Gwangju Housing due to unavoidable reasons falling under the circumstances of service as stipulated in Article 155 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.