1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding “3. conclusion”) except for supplementing or adding the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary and additional Plaintiff asserts as follows.

The public register of the instant officetel is a business facility rather than a house, and since acquisition tax and property tax are imposed and paid as a building other than a house, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant officetel is a house is an illegal disposition that violates the prohibition of unjust infringement of property rights under Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the prohibition of retroactive taxation.

However, since capital gains tax, which is a local tax imposed by a local government, and its imposing authority and legal provisions are different from those of local tax, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as violating the principle of prohibition of infringement on property rights or the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation solely on the ground that it differs from the local tax imposition criteria.

Furthermore, as the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, where a person who transfers a house owns another building, whether the other building constitutes “house” or not shall be determined by whether the actual purpose of use is a building actually offered for residence regardless of the usage classification of the injury to the building, and in light of various circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant officetel falls under a house stipulated in the Income Tax Act.

The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is reasonable.

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