Seocho 2012west 2689 (Law No. 13, 2012)

It shall not be recognized as an inherited house to which the special provisions on one house for one household apply.

Where an ancestor owns two or more houses at the time of commencement of inheritance, only one house for which the period of possession by the decedent is the highest may be recognized as an inheritance house to which the special provisions on the house of one household apply. Therefore, a house owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of inheritance for a shorter period among the houses owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of inheritance is not recognized as an inheritance

2012 old-gu 28875 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Capital Gains Tax Correction

Park AAA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

June 12, 2013

July 10, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on March 8, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

“The Plaintiff’s father ParkB, on January 1, 1976, was approved for the use of 00 ground buildings, and on November 26, 1993, completed the registration for the preservation of ownership in the name of the site (hereinafter collectively referred to as “projected housing I”), and on September 6, 1999, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000 housing (hereinafter referred to as “projected housing2”), the Plaintiff’s mother died on March 24, 201, and on March 24, 2001, the Plaintiff’s mother succeeded to housing 1, and the Plaintiff’s housing 2, respectively.

(C) On January 22, 200, the Plaintiff acquired Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant house”) on January 22, 200, and reported and paid transfer income tax without applying the special long-term holding deduction, and on February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid transfer income tax without applying the special long-term holding deduction. (d) On January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of transfer income tax with the purport that the Plaintiff would apply the special long-term holding deduction corresponding to one house for one household as to the instant transfer to the Defendant on January 10, 2012, on the ground that the Defendant had the key house two at the time of the said transfer, and on March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff refused the said request for rectification (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff was subject to the previous trial procedure.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The term "house 1" is "house in agricultural and fishing villages as provided in Article 155 (7) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22073, Mar. 9, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), and the house 2 is "house inherited" as provided in Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the special long-term holding deduction under the proviso of Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10175, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") should be applied to the transfer of this case. Therefore, the disposition of this case made on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful," or the related statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the proviso of Article 95(2), Article 159(2) of the Enforcement Decree, Articles 159(2)1 and 154(1) of the Act, and Article 154(1) of the Act, where one household possessing one inherited house and one inherited house and other house (hereinafter “ordinary house”) respectively in Korea transfers the ordinary house, it can be seen that it owns one house in Korea and can be applied for special long-term holding deduction in calculation of capital gains tax, and where the decedent owns two or more houses at the time of commencement of the inheritance, the period for which the decedent owns the house for which the predecessor owns the house for which the period of possession is the longest is the first time can be recognized as the house for which the decedent had the first time more than two houses at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (in fact, as seen earlier, it is impossible to be the "house inherited” under the above provision, and the plaintiff is not recognized as the "house inherited” under the proviso of Article 25(2) of the Act.

(2) On the other hand, even though the key house 1 falls under the "rural and fishing village house" as provided in Article 155 (7) 1 of the Enforcement Decree, and solely for that reason, it does not fall under the "where the decedent owns 2 or more houses at the time of commencement of the inheritance," and the key house 1 does not fall under the "one house for which the predecessor owns 2 or more houses at the time of commencement of the inheritance" (However, if the deceased ParkB owned 2 houses at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, and the plaintiff succeeds both 1 and 2, the key house 2 may be excluded from the "rural and fishing village house" as provided in Article 155 (7) 1 of the Enforcement Decree, and therefore, the long-term special deduction for possession of the house corresponding to 11 household can be applied to the transfer of this case).

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition taken on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.