Seoul High Court-2017-Nu-5878 ( December 06, 2017)

Cho Jae-2016-west-2382 (Law No. 19, 2016)

(C) If it is confirmed that an officetel held at the time of transfer was used for residential purposes, it shall not be deemed that it constitutes one house for one household.

(C) The Plaintiff’s officetel owned at the time of the transfer of the instant apartment is difficult to view that it constitutes one house for one household since it was confirmed that it was used for residential purposes.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 99-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's ground of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Trial Procedure, and it is therefore dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.