The early appellate court 2015 Deputy 2774

Whether it is a house or not shall be determined by whether it is a building actually used for residence.

It is difficult to see that employees used as a lodging, have an independent form of residence, have no function as a permanent kitchen, if transferred, it is anticipated to be transferred to a residential building, and it seems to have been used as a residence due to the actual relocation into an officetel, etc., and corresponding to a house under the Income Tax Act, such as the fact that employees were used as a lodging house.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2015Guhap23893 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

December 18, 2015

2015.01.29

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on June 3, 2015 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired 00,000 00 00 00 0,000 0 (hereinafter “the instant house”) from August 11, 1993, and on May 24, 2013, △△△△△△△△△△△△△, △△△△, △△△△, △△△, △△△, △△, △△△, △△△, and △△△△, 2, △△△△, △△△

B. On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant transferred house to KRW 000,000,000,000, which was determined as one house for one household, and subsequently scheduled the transfer income tax for the year 2014 to KRW 0.

C. On June 3, 2015, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000,000 for transfer income tax reverted to year 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on September 7, 2015.

[In the absence of dispute with recognition, evidence 1, 2, 3, 10, and evidence 1, and 2, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant officetel was used as a rest facility for employees of the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff and his spouse, and is merely a supporting facility for the business of the said restaurant. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant officetel is a house is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In a case where a transferor of a house owns another building, whether the other building constitutes "house" under Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by whether the actual purpose of use is a building actually used for a residence regardless of the classification of the use of the injury caused by the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu584, Sept. 8, 1987) and even if the building is temporarily used for a non-residential purpose, its structure, function or facility is suitable for a residence as its original residential purpose, and the dwelling function is maintained and managed as it is, so it shall be deemed a house in the case of a building in which the principal or a third party can use for a house at any time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14960, Apr. 28, 200

앞서 든 증거에 을 제4 내지 7호증의 각 영상, 증인 ○○○의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정，즉 ① 원고는 이 사건 오피스텔을 취득한 후, 2013. 6.경부터 배우자가 운영하는 음식점의 종업원들이 숙소로 사용하고 있었던 점，② 이 사건 오피스텔은 주거용 목적으로 건축된 것으로，그 구조가 침실，거실, 화장실, 주방 및 식당 등으로 구분되어 있었는데，내부에 샤워실, 침대，옷장, 화장대，신발장，냉장고, 세탁기 등을 갖추고 있어 독립된 주거가 가능한 형태를 갖추고 있는 점, ③ 주방에 있던 조리용 주방시설은 종업원인 ○○○의 요구에 의하여 철거되고 수납장이 설치되었으나，수납장만 제거하면 구조를 변경할 필요 없이 언제든지 조리용 주방시설을 설치할 수 있어 영구적으로 주방으로서의 기능이 상실된 것으로 보기 어려운 점, ④ 위와 같은 오피스텔의 구조 및 형태에 비추어 원고 본인이나 제3자가 언제든지 용도나 구조변경 없이 주거용으로 사용할 수 있고，원고가 제3자에게 양도하는 경우에도 주거용 건물로서 양도될 것이 예상되며, 실제로 위 ○○○이 퇴거한 후 △△△은 2015. 6. 26. 자신의 자와 함께 이 사건 오피스텔에 전입하여 주거로 사용하고 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 이 사건 오피스텔이 건축법 시행령 제3조의4 [별표 1] 제14호 업무시설 중 나목에서 규정한 오피스텔(업무를 주로 하며, 분양하거나 임대하는 구획 중 일부 구획에서 숙식을 할 수 있도록 한 건축물)에 해당한다고 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 오피스텔은 소득세법 소정의 주택에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate on the premise that the instant transferred house is not one house for one household that is exempt from taxation, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.