logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 11. 06. 선고 2013누15585 판결
다른 주택 지분을 보유한 자녀가 별개의 세대를 구성한다고 볼 수 없어 1세대 2주택에 해당함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan21560 ( October 10, 2013)

Title

The child who holds another house share constitutes two houses for one household because he/she cannot be deemed to constitute a separate household.

Summary

In light of the occupation and income amount of unmarried children aged 26 years old at the time of transfer, it is difficult to view that they had a separate living independent from their parents in light of the parent's occupation and income amount of unmarried children aged 26 years old at the time.

Cases

2013Nu1585 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

Gangwon A

Defendant, Appellant

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan21560 decided May 10, 2013

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 16, 2013

Imposition of Judgment

November 6, 2013

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of the Defendant rendered on February 1, 2012 by the OOOO (including additional taxes, the same shall apply) of the capital gains tax belonging to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows. The plaintiff added that the apartment of this case does not constitute non-taxable objects as prescribed by the relevant statutes at the time of transfer, even if considering the allegations and evidence that the plaintiff made and evidence that the apartment of this case is inside, is not subject to non-taxable objects as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The corresponding part of the

"2. 9 February 2012, 2012" that will be the second 11th , is called " February 1, 2012."

The "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22950, Jun. 3, 2011; hereinafter the same)" is "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same)". The "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22950, Jun. 3, 2011)" is "Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22950, Jun. 3, 2011)."

○ 11th "Purchase" is regarded as "lease".

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is correct. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

arrow