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.