early 2010 Mine3538 ( October 28, 2011)

Where a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is acquired without any inevitable reason, the special provisions on one house shall not apply to one household.

Where a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is acquired without any inevitable reason while it has been owned by a house located outside the Seoul Metropolitan area and another house is transferred to a local area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area due to unavoidable reasons, such as working conditions, etc. after the person becomes two houses for one household, the special provisions on one house for one household

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree

2011Guhap4862 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAA

Head of the North Mine District Tax Office

May 3, 2012

May 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition disposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001. 7. 23. 서울 강남구 OO동 000 OO아파트 000호(이하 'OO주택'이라고 한다)의 소유권을 취득하였고， 2003. 12. 12. 광주 광산구 OO동 000 대지 182.1㎡， 같은 동 000 대지 183.1㎡ 및 지상 다가구주택 578.83㎡(이하 'OO주택'이라고 한다)의 소유권을 취득하였다.

B. On May 1, 2009, the Plaintiff resided in the Seoul Housing and worked as a military doctor at the National Armed Forces Waterworks Hospital, and his family transferred his residence to Gwangju.

C. Accordingly, on December 19, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the Seoul Housing to KRW 000,000 for the purchase price, and on February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return of tax base of KRW 000 as capital gains tax on the transfer income equivalent to the excess of KRW 000 for one household, on the premise that it constitutes one house for one household.

D. Prior to the transfer of Seoul Housing, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff had already owned the Gwangju Housing and was a 1 year old large 2 housing owner, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 000 as the transfer income tax reverted to July 16, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 29, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on October 28, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff resided in Seoul Housing and moved to the Jeonnam University Hospital on May 1, 2009, all of his family members moved to Gwangju Housing, and accordingly, they transferred the Seoul Housing on December 29, 2009, and the Plaintiff’s act of transfer is unlawful in the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff is a two-household, under Article 155(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21934, Dec. 31, 2009; Presidential Decree No. hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff’s act of transfer of the house located outside the Seoul Housing and other houses (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary house”) acquired outside the Seoul Housing area due to the conditions of attendance, work, medical treatment of diseases, and other inevitable circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the general house is considered as one house per household.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Therefore, the provisions of Article 15 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9785, Jul. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulate that one house for one household shall be transferred to the Seoul metropolitan area for the following reasons, and that one household shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Seoul metropolitan area for 5 years, and that 1 household shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Seoul metropolitan area for 5 years under the same conditions as the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (if the former house is transferred to 1 household for 5 years after its acquisition, 1 household shall be deemed to have been exempted from taxation, 2 household houses shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Seoul metropolitan area for 5 years, and if the former house is transferred to the same household for 1 household for 5 years, 3 years, and 5 years, 1 household shall be deemed to have been transferred for 1 household for other unavoidable reasons as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and 2 household houses shall be transferred for 5 years or more.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.