beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff's claim changed in the trial is dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 13, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired as the cause of inheritance cement 104.13 square meters, 2nd floor 104.85 square meters, 2nd floor 57.85 square meters, and 132.17 square meters, 2nd floor 132.17 square meters, and 132.17 square meters, 2nd floor 132.17 square meters, both of the above land and the house and the store were combined.
B. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C (hereinafter “C”) to sell each of the instant real estate in the price of KRW 2.5 billion. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to C by completing the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the said sale.
C. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the area of each of the instant real estate (i.e., the total area of 1 and 2 floors of the instant building is larger than that of the part other than the area (i.e., the area of 161.98 square meters); and (b) the transfer of each of the instant real estate is divided into transfer of expensive houses as one house for one household; and (c) reported and paid KRW 45,018,639, the transfer income tax for the year 2015, calculated accordingly.
However, as a result of the audit conducted by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office with the Defendant from September 4, 2017 to September 21, 2017, it was confirmed that the first floor of the instant building was operated as a restaurant and excluded from the housing area. Accordingly, if the housing area and the area other than the housing area are re-calculated among each real estate of this case, the part other than the housing area (including the second floor area of the instant building, 57.85 square meters) was larger than the housing area (including the second floor area of the instant building, 104.13 square meters, and the store area of this case, 132.17 square meters and the unauthorized building area of this case, and 270.48 square meters).
E. Accordingly, on February 1, 2018, the Defendant issued one house for one household with respect to the area of the part other than the housing confirmed as above to the Plaintiff.