Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan3788 ( November 26, 2015)

Even if the area of a house is larger than that of a house, it cannot be applied as the total period of housing holding when applying the long-term housing deduction rate.

Where the non-housing portion is larger than the non-housing portion, the non-housing portion shall be deemed a house and the non-taxation provision for one household may be applied, but in calculating the gains on transfer of a house for a concurrent use corresponding to a high-priced house, it shall not be deemed that the non-housing portion can be deemed a house

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu36180 Revocation of Disposition imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court 2014Gudan3788 ( February 4, 2015)

November 26, 2015

January 14, 2016

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 transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2012

17,793,144 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation concerning this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 2(2) through 4(5).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This Court's explanation is the same as the statement in the fourth and last directions of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The contents to be explained by the court concerning this part are the same as the 10th to 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the instant real estate

1) Judgment on the main argument

According to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), Articles 156(1) and 160(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same), if a house subject to transfer and its appurtenant land fall under a high-priced house with more than KRW 900,000 won in total at the time of transfer, the non-taxation provision on one house for one household (Article 89(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act) is not applicable to a house for which transfer income tax can be applied to a house for more than 10,000,000 which is non-taxation requirement under the Income Tax Act (Article 156(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act; hereinafter the same shall apply). Therefore, if a house subject to transfer falls under an expensive house, the former Enforcement Decree No. 154(1).

Therefore, under different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion that when applying the special long-term holding deduction rate under Article 95 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act based on the provision of Article 154(3) of the former Enforcement Decree, the entire portion of the house ought to be applied on the ground that the portion of the house is larger than that of the part other than the house, and at the same time, the deduction rate corresponding to

1) However, Article 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on the transfer of one house by one household, the sum of actual transaction values of which does not exceed KRW 900 million, provides that a certain amount of capital gains tax shall be reduced even in expensive houses.

2) Determination on the conjunctive assertion

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows: "The contents to be explained by the court concerning this part are as follows: "A building" in the first instance court's 6th "the 6th "the 6th court's 13th court's 6th court's 6th court's 6th court's 6th to 17th court's 6th court's 6th 6th court's 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 17th 6th 6th 6th 6th

This Court's explanation is the same as the 6th court's 19th to 20th court's 8th court's 19th court's 6th court's 19th 8th 19th 8th 20th 8th 8th 200.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.