1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

On July 8, 2016, the Defendant transferred income tax for the Plaintiff in the year of 2011 to the Plaintiff 92,568.

1. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the disposition is as follows: (a) except for the addition of “a disposition to be imposed” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) following the second part of the judgment of the first instance, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this part of the disposition shall be cited in accordance with the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The Plaintiff resided with his spouse J on November 9, 2005 and divorced on November 9, 2005, brought a move-in report on an apartment building located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, which was owned by his spouse, but actually resided together with the Defendant F’s family in the instant housing located in Daejeon.

In addition, the Plaintiff had leased the instant house before residing in the instant house, and had resided in the instant house and leased part of it, thereby earning income.

While doing so, F was trying to live together with the Plaintiff, and at the time of the transfer of the instant house, the Plaintiff again resided in the JJ’s house.

As such, the Plaintiff was unable to reside in the apartment owned by C, as well as the Plaintiff was able to independently maintain his livelihood with the leased income generated from the instant house until the time of transfer of the instant house. Therefore, it cannot be said that he shared the livelihood with C.

② On November 29, 2013, the Defendant issued an advance notice of imposition of capital gains tax on the instant housing to the Plaintiff, and then expressed that the Defendant’s employee in charge would not impose capital gains tax after hearing the explanation of the circumstances from the Plaintiff. As such, the instant disposition goes against the principle of protection of trust.

③ Since the Plaintiff, as a disabled person, who supports the elderly and the grandchildren with difficulties in economic circumstances, may lose the place of residence with his/her family due to the instant disposition, there is a defect in violation of the principle of proportionality, which does not consider the taxpayer’s ability to bear expenses.

(b)in addition to the relevant laws and regulations;