Seoul Administrative Court 2017Gudan75296 ( September 11, 2018)

Even if a new house was built after acquiring a house and removing it, the acquired house and newly built house shall not be deemed a separate house.

Even if a new house was built after acquiring a house and removing it, the acquired house and newly built house shall not be deemed a separate house.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act, Article 155 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2018Nu65479 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

November 20, 2018

December 11, 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 disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 1**,*,*,**,*,*,*,*, special rural development tax of 4,**(including additional tax) against the plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420

○ The following shall be added to the 7th decision of the first instance court:

Meanwhile, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it would result in recognizing the exception that the person who owns existing houses removes another house and the house acquired after acquiring another house and the land only for the purpose of using the land within a short time, excluding the house, only the acquisition of the land except for the house. It would be against the principle of strict interpretation of the tax reduction and exemption provisions as seen earlier, and would also hamper the efficient and balanced enforcement of the tax administration.

In addition, on August 27, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted as above on the following grounds: (a) without presenting any explanation or materials as to whether the instant house was destroyed or lost under any circumstances from his father AA on August 27, 2010; or (b) whether the instant house was destroyed objectively and to a certain extent of value; (c) on the ground that the instant house was destroyed or demolished around November 25, 2010, which was donated by the Plaintiff; and (d) such circumstance alone, the Plaintiff cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was donated with the intention to remove the instant house from the beginning (if it was intended to remove from the beginning, then the Plaintiff could have clearly handled all the legal relations through the donation after the removal. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, once it received the donation from its donation, may have failed to remove the said house by taking account of economic utility, etc.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.