Seoul High Court 2013Nu48684 (Law No. 23, 2014)

Seoul High Court Decision 193No. 2012 ( December 27, 2012)

Where the previous house is destroyed and newly constructed, the period of holding the previous house shall be added to the amount of special deduction for long-term holding of the land for one household.

(F) Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the period of possession and residence of the destroyed house and the newly-built house shall be aggregated when determining the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household. It is reasonable to interpret that the period of possession is aggregated in the case of one house for one household which fails to meet the non-taxation requirements

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

2014du36921 The revocation of revocation of a request for capital gains tax rectification

NewA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu48684 Decided April 23, 2014

April 23, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 95 (1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that Article 95 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that with respect to assets under Article 94 (1) 1 of the same Act, whose holding period is not less than three years, an amount calculated by multiplying the gains from transfer of the relevant assets by the deduction rate per holding period shall be the special deduction amount for long-term holding, and the deduction amount of maximum of 30/100 for each holding period shall be applied to gains from transfer, and in principle, the deduction rate of maximum of 80/100 for each holding period shall be applied to assets falling under one house of one household (including land annexed thereto) prescribed by Presidential Decree.

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the previous house on the land of this case before January 1, 1985, and removed it on March 27, 1996, and reconstructed the newly-built house of this case on September 30, 1996, and transferred it on July 9, 2008; (b) the previous house and newly-built house of this case constitute one house for one household to which the high-rate long-term holding special deduction rate applies; (c) the special deduction system for long-term holding of the house of this case was established to promote the sound investment or ownership of real estate through the deduction of a certain amount in calculating transfer income amount for long-term holding period of three years or more; (d) the purpose of applying the special deduction for long-term holding period of 10/100 or more to the total reconstruction rate of 10/100 of the previous house of this case to the effect that the special deduction for long-term holding period of 214 years or less is unlawful.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on "calculated of special deduction for long-term possession of the reconstructed house due to the loss of old age

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.