beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 23, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned the Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred it to D on October 13, 2015, in KRW 2,035,000,000.
B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant apartment is subject to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same).
Based on the premise that the transfer of one house for one household constitutes “one house for one household” as prescribed by Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same), the Defendant reported and paid KRW 22,684,30,00 to the Defendant on November 10, 2015.
C. However, as of October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s spouse E (hereinafter “instant building”), as of October 13, 2015, owned a building located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu (43.62 square meters, 27.72 square meters, 3 stories, 27.72 square meters, hereinafter “instant building”). Since the instant building’s 2 and 3 stories constitute housing, the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act.
(1) On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the correction of capital gains tax of KRW 272,892,450 (including additional tax) for the year 2015.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(D) On May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 23, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 29, 2017.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. It was true that the use of the 2 and 3th floor of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the first house. However, around August 2013, E obtained permission from the head of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si to change the use of the 2 and 3th floor of the instant building into the 2nd class neighborhood living facilities (office), and around that time, it was actually the building 2 and the building of this case.