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 cited in this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, thereby citing it pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

The following shall be added to the fourth sentence below of the first instance judgment:

In addition, Articles 155(19) and 167-3(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act explicitly stipulate that "business registration under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act" and "registration of a rental business operator under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act" shall be made with respect to the lessee of the "long-term rental house". Thus, even if the opening date on the Plaintiff's business registration certificate (Evidence A4) was corrected on June 17, 2015, the transfer date of the instant house was corrected on June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff's lease business registration date is still recognized as Oct. 14, 2015, according to the Plaintiff's business registration certificate's correction of the opening date on the above business registration certificate. Thus, it cannot be said that the long-term rental house in this case constituted the long-term rental house under Article 155(19)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act at

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