beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2017Gudan20302 ( November 14, 2017)
Case Number of the previous trial
Appellate Court 2015No2332 (Law No. 1358, 2015)
Title
It is not a single house for one household if no rental house is registered under the Rental Housing Act.
Summary
(As in the first instance judgment, registration of rental housing under the Rental Housing Act and registration of business under the Income Tax Act are different from their purpose and purpose, and registration of rental housing under the Rental Housing Act is not deemed registration of rental housing under the Rental Housing Act solely on the ground that registration of business under the Income Tax Act has been made, so it does not constitute one
Related statutes
Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income)
Cases
2017Nu86295 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Plaintiff and appellant
AAA
Defendant, Appellant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
November 14, 2017
Conclusion of Pleadings
February 27, 2018
Imposition of Judgment
March 27, 2018
Text
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant is revoked on January 3, 2017 only by the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff").
The transfer income tax of 00,000,000 for the year 2015 of the Kim Jong-seok's 2015 against the Selection KimA and KimB
The disposition rejecting the correction of the class shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this court's decision are as follows: "A provision of 4th 8th 8th son of the judgment of the court of first instance is stipulated", and the attached Acts and subordinate statutes are replaced by the attached Acts and subordinate statutes (the addition of subparagraph 2 to Article 155(19) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) in addition to the replacement of the attached Acts and subordinate statutes in this judgment (the addition of subparagraph 2 to Article 155(19) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.