Seocho 2010west 1169 ( November 17, 2010)

not recognized as a separate household;

If a person aged 30 or older is living together with his/her parents at the same address or residence as his/her parents, he/she shall be comprised of one household with his/her parents, and since his/her children cannot be recognized as a separate household due to the use of credit cards and gas stations, the disposition imposed on him/her as three houses for one household is legitimate.

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2011Gudan3811 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

○ Head of tax office

May 4, 2011

June 1, 201

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 274,658,90 on the Plaintiff on November 2, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired a multi-family house located in ○○○○○-dong 720-9 (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”). On October 24, 2006, ○○○○-dong 1281 Dong 1281 Dong 1003, and on January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the instant house.

B. The Plaintiff deemed that the transfer of the instant house constitutes two temporary houses for one household under Article 155(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and filed a final return on May 31, 2008 and filed a non-taxation report.

C. As to this, the Defendant: (a) at the time of the transfer of the instant house, owned 919 Dong-dong 103, Cheongdong-gu, Cheongdong-gu, Cheongdong-gu, Seogdong-gu, Cheongdong-gu, Cheongdong-gu, △dong-gu, which was registered as the same household member on the resident registration as the Plaintiff’s child at the time of the transfer of the instant house; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant: (c) deemed that the Plaintiff is a three house owner for one household; and (d) imposed capital gains tax of KRW 274,658,90 for one household

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 154(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree provides, “If the resident is 30 years of age or older, if the resident’s age is 30 years or older, it shall be deemed as one household under the provision of paragraph (1) even if the resident’s domicile or temporary domicile is nonexistent.” This interpretation is construed that the resident’s age is at least 30 years of age regardless of whether the resident’s domicile or temporary domicile is identical, respectively, shall be deemed as an independent household regardless of whether the resident’s age is 30 years or older, and thus, the disposition of this case reported differently from the Plaintiff

(2) From April 1, 1994 to November 26, 2009, the conciliationA had sufficient income to form an independent household while serving as a standing member of the △△△ City, a member of the △△△ City, and with only resident registration for the work of the △△ City, a member of the △△ City, located in the △△ City, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Do-si, Dong-dong, △△ City, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Do-dong, and Gu.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, we examine the argument that the ChoA constitutes an independent household regardless of whether it is identical with, or consistent with, the Plaintiff, as it is over 30 years of age at the time of the transfer of the instant house.

Comprehensively taking account of the provisions of Article 154(1), (2)1, and (6) of the Enforcement Decree, each of the above provisions means that a person of 30 years of age or older also consists of one household together with his parents who share the same livelihood at the same address or same place of residence as his parents, and where a household does not constitute one household pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1) with the parents, it is interpreted that a separate household shall be formed even if there is no spouse pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that conciliationA constitutes an independent household pursuant to Article 154 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree regardless of whether it is the same as or living together with the plaintiff.

(2) Next, we examine the assertion that ChoA actually resided in the Si/Gun/Gu without residing in the instant house, such as the Plaintiff, and had a different livelihood.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 10, it is recognized that the conciliationA served as a full-time member of the Seoul Metropolitan City dance group from Apr. 1, 1994 to Nov. 26, 2009, and that Korea-E, an art supervisor of the Seoul Metropolitan City dance group, prepared a written confirmation of residence that the conciliationA had resided in the area of the △△△ region, and completed a written confirmation of living with the content that the conciliationA used the leased area as the conciliationA.

However, even if the conciliationA had worked in the Si-Gun of Do, it is possible to commute to and from the instant house, and since the art supervisor and members of the Do of the Do of the Seoul Special Self-Governing City at the request of the conciliationA, there was a possibility that the conciliationA had prepared a written confirmation different from the facts, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the conciliationA had resided in the Gun of Gun of Gun, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, most of the usage of the credit card of the Mediation Committee from January 2005 to the transfer date of the instant house were related to the ○○○○○○○ Location ran, and the amount of KRW 50,000 ordinarily from the gas station to the 3-4 times average monthly amount of KRW 1 month. Accordingly, in doing so, the Mediation Committee seems to have been commuting to and from the instant house using the car of the Si/Gun/autonomous Gu, etc.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have constituted a separate household separate from the ChoA at the time of the transfer of the instant house. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition that the Plaintiff imposed on deeming that it constituted three houses for one household at the time of the transfer of the instant house is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.