logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.09.11 2015구단54769
양도소득세부과처분취소
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 December 23, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a multi-family house on the ground B in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant rental house”) and registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act with the head of Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Office on May 29, 2006.

B. On November 27, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and resided in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Non-dong 3101 (hereinafter the instant transferred house) and transferred the instant rental house to November 19, 2013. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 16,061,880,00 for the transfer income tax for the household on January 31, 2014 by deeming the instant rental house as a long-term rental house under Article 167-3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act not to include it in the number of houses, but by applying Article 155(19) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Special Cases concerning “one house for one household”).

C. On November 20, 2013, the Defendant excluded the application of Article 155(19) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the instant rental housing did not fall under the long-term rental investment scheme, on the ground that the Plaintiff was not registered as a rental business operator pursuant to the Rental Housing Act at the time of the transfer date of the instant transfer house, and that on September 12, 2014, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 150,269,400 for the transfer income tax reverted

(hereinafter in this case). D.

On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Tax Tribunal upon dismissal on March 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. At the time of 2006 when the Plaintiff asserted the registration of a rental business operator under the Income Tax Act, more than 5 houses have been leased. The instant rental house is merely a multi-family house under subparagraph 1, and it was impossible to register as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act.

subsection 1. thereafter.

arrow