Chuncheon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-50797 ( December 017)

Any disposition denying the application of non-taxation for one household by deeming it as a house if it is actually used as a house even if it is used in the public register;

The instant officetel transferred by the Plaintiff is actually used as a house, and the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements of non-taxation for one household.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2018Nu24

A lawsuit stating that it does not submit an original copy of the monthly or monthly charter agreement of an officetel;

The letter of vindication (hereinafter referred to as the "written vindication of this case") was submitted.

○ The 5th judgment of the first instance court is replaced by the 11 to 14th judgment (B) as follows.

(B) As seen earlier, “this case’s vindication submitted by the Plaintiff and CCC to the Defendant”

A tenant who uses an officetel for a non-business purpose, and such officetel is a tenant;

include the statement that it does not submit the original of the previous and monthly rent contract.

○ In Part 14 of the fifth decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

(C) CCC’s business registration to DDR on March 26, 2017 is limited to the date before February 12, 2016.

DDD on April 9, 2017, hereinafter “CCC”) sent a letter “I”, and DD intends to help CCC.

The phrase "it is difficult to create any tax-related problem if business registration is made."

The notice was sent by CCC to DD on February 12, 2016, the transfer date of the instant house.

(D) DD, which appears to have been requested to register the business retroactively by the date of transfer;

A. The fixed date of the instant officetel received as of May 8, 2013 is a housing lease agreement certificate.

The letters sent to CCC on April 23, 2017, which were received by the "Rules on the Assignment of Fixed Date".

DDD has a condition that "it is possible to move to another place", and DD has such a condition that DD may move to another place.

It appears that an officetel is actually used for residence.

○ It is difficult to add the following contents to the 5th judgment of the first instance court.

The plaintiff submitted the written vindication of this case to the defendant by content-certified mail at the court

The second lease contract is argued that it was placed in the integrated document kept in the public service center, but it is argued that the second lease contract has been placed in the public service center.

In light of the content of the supporting document, it is difficult to obtain it, as well as the video of the evidence No. 26

Since it is insufficient to recognize that the second lease contract was submitted on the same day, it is not recognized otherwise.

There is no evidence to prove that the second lease contract is in question, and as alleged by the plaintiff, the vindication of the second lease contract in this case.

Even if the plaintiff submitted on the same day, considering the above circumstances, the plaintiff's assertion as above.

It is impossible to recognize the credibility of the second lease contract only on its own.

○ Following the fifth fifth decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

(vi)The CCC has its business registered as a leasing business with respect to the instant officetel and value added tax;

CCC has reported and paid the tax investigation of this case, but this is prior to the end date of the tax investigation of this case.

In October 26, 2016, the date of commencement of business was applied for registration of business retrospectively on March 13, 2013, and the Ministry of Environment.

The return and payment of the value-added tax was made by the return after the due date.

(7) On June 2017, 2017, the CCC terminated a lease agreement with DD with respect to the instant officetel.

23. A letter of transfer of KRW 0,000,000 under the name of "payment of settlement of lease" to an account in the name of DD;

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the CCC is deemed to have been aware of the fact of remittance.

A value-added tax on which DD had not been paid to CCC during the lease period.

It is difficult to recognize that the rental deposit was returned after deducting from the rental deposit.

(8) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant officetel is currently used for business purposes.

The lease contract between the CCC and the △△△△ corporation on the officetel on June 30, 2017

(A) The evidence No. 28-1) was submitted, but it was only about the present state of use.

At the time of the transfer of the instant house, the use of the instant officetel cannot be affected.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017Guhap50797 Decided December 1, 2017

April 11, 2018

May 9, 2018

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 Defendant’s capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000,000 granted to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016

The imposition disposition shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or modification of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the

Part for addition or replacement

○ The 4th judgment of the first instance court is replaced by the 11-14th judgment (3) as follows.

(3) On October 7, 2016, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff and CCC to submit the original copy of the instant officetel as of February 12, 2016. However, the Plaintiff and CCC requested on October 17, 2016 that the instant officetel be used for non-business purposes, since it is a tenant who uses the instant officetel for non-business purposes.