Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan10228 ( October 23, 2009)

Residential requirements are only a provision for presumption of residence from the date of transfer to the date of transfer of resident registration.

The requirements of residence are presumed to have been resided for more than two years from the date of resident registration to the date of transfer, and if there is proof of opposing facts, the provisions of shouldering the requirements of residence are confirmed to have been only the resident registration in the house registered as resident but also leased without the fact of residence, so the requirements of residence are not satisfied

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 84,248,130 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2002. 6. 25. 서울 양천구 ☆동 ★★★★타운 1차 2203호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라고 한다)를 취득하여 보유하다가 2006. 3. 15. 이○○에게 대금 7억 2,000만 원에 양도한 후 이 사건 아파트를 1세대 1주택 비과세 대상으로 보고 6억 원 초과분에 대하여만 양도차익을 계산하여 2006. 5. 30. 피고에게 양도소득과세표준 신고를 하고 그에 따른 양도소득세 5,745,126원을 납부하였다.

B. On the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the non-taxation requirements for one house per household due to the Plaintiff’s failure to reside in the instant apartment for at least two years, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify capital gains tax of KRW 84,248,130 on November 1, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute; the evidence Nos. 2 through 6 of the overlapping Act; Eul evidence No. 1-2; Eul evidence No. 2; Eul evidence No. 3-1 and 2; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) 원고는 이 사건 아파트의 임차인 이●●가 이사한 2003. 5. 25. 직후부터 이 사건 주택에 거주하기 시작하였고, 이후 2004. 1. 28. 양◎◎에게 이 사건 아파트를 임대함에 있어서도 특약으로 원고가 이 사건 아파트의 방 1칸을 계속 사용할 수 있도록 약정하여 그 후에도 주중에는 차녀인 박◆◆의 집에서 머물다가 주말에는 이 사건 아파트로 돌아오는 식으로 이 사건 아파트에 거주하다가 2006년 봄경에 박◆◆의 집으로 이사하였으므로, 원고는 실제로 이 사건 아파트에서 2년 이상 거주하였다.

(2) Even if the period in which the Plaintiff actually resided in the instant apartment does not reach two years, Article 154(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; Presidential Decree No. hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”) provides that the period of residence, which is non-taxation requirement for one house for one household, shall be based on the period from the date of transfer on the resident registration card to the date of transfer, shall be the period from the date of transfer, and the Plaintiff met the above requirements since the amount of two years and eight months from August 28, 2003 to April 17, 2006, the Plaintiff satisfied the residency requirement for two years or more, which is non-taxation requirement for one house for one household.

(3) 원고의 딸인 박◆◆은 그 남편 및 아들과 함께 1세대를 구성하면서 서울 서초구 ◇◇동 87-1 ����아트빌라 11차 A동 101호의 1주택을 소유하던 중, 원고의 건강이 악화되자 원고를 동거봉양하기 위하여 함께 살게 된 것이므로, 원고가 이 사건 아파트를 양도한 것은 소득세법 시행령 제155조 제4항에 의한 비과세요건에 해당한다.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The instant apartment is an apartment with an area for exclusive use by its occupant of 147.95 square meters (56 square meters) and has four rooms.

(2) On June 2001, the Plaintiff leased the apartment of this case to Baluri, and on June 26, 2001, the Balurie Balan transferred the apartment of this case to Baluri, after filing a move-in report on the resident registration in the apartment of this case, and residing therein on August 29, 2003.

(3) On January 28, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with regard to the apartment of this case, setting the deposit amount of 320 million won and the period of 320 million won from March 9, 2004, and agreed that the Plaintiff’s resident registration may continue to exist in the apartment of this case with the special agreement, and if both knife and knife are paid the down payment, the moving-in report on the apartment of this case may be made even before the said lease period.

(4) On January 29, 2004, after paying the down payment in accordance with the above special agreement, Walton had made a move-in report on the resident registration in the apartment of this case on March 9, 2004, and had his wife and two children (the married 1987, 1989, and the 1989, respectively) occupied the apartment of this case, and resided in the house regularly. On March 9, 2006, on the expiration of the above period, the lease deposit was increased to KRW 440 million and the contract was renewed, and the contract was transferred on February 20, 2008.

(5) Meanwhile, on August 28, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment on the Plaintiff’s resident registration card and stated that he transferred the apartment on April 17, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11, 16 evidence, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Standard for determining the period of residence

Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, delegated by Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, requires that the period of residence shall be at least two years during the period of possession of one house for one household in cases of a house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc.

In light of the language and text of Article 154 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, there is no room to interpret that the period of residence as non-taxation requirement for one household should be entered in the resident registration card regardless of whether it actually resides. However, Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act sets the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household and sets the period of residence in addition to the period of possession only in a specific area such as Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc. The purpose of the above legislation is to restrain speculation of real estate. If the above period of residence is determined solely by the entry in the resident registration card, there is concern that the above legislation will be dismissed, and Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act requires the "resident" as non-taxation requirement, and it is obvious that the "resident" means "the period of stay in a certain place", and Article 154 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is only the method of calculating the "resident's residence", and Article 154 (2) of the presumption period from 7.7).

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff satisfied the non-taxation requirement solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was registered for at least two years on the resident registration regardless of whether the Plaintiff actually resided.

(2) Whether the plaintiff was actually residing

The facts that the Plaintiff registered as a resident in the apartment of this case from August 28, 2003 to April 17, 2006 are as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff is presumed to have resided in the apartment of this case for the foregoing period.

그러나 앞에서 인정한 사실관계 및 이 사건 기록을 통하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉, 원고가 이 사건 아파트에 주민등록을 두고 있던 기간 중 약 6개월 남짓을 제외하고는 임차인과 그 가족들이 이 사건 아파트에서 실제로 거주하였던 점, 이 사건 아파트는 방 4개의 구조로서 한 가족이 아닌 사람이 함께 거주한다는 것은 매우 불편할 뿐만 아니라 사회통념상으로도 지극히 이례적이라고 할 것인 점, 원고와 양◎◎ 사이의 임대차계약서의 특약사항을 보더라도 원고와 양◎◎은 단지 원고의 주민등록만 이 사건 아파트에 남겨두는 것으로 약정한 것으로 보이는 점, 임차인 양◎◎은 주말에만 이 사건 아파트에 기거하였다는 원고의 주장과 달리 원고가 평소 이 사건 아파트에 거주하다가 주말에만 딸의 집에 다녀왔다고 하여 원고와 모순되는 진술을 하고 있는 점(갑 제14호증 거주사실확인서), 원고가 제출하고 있는 박◆◆의 예금통장에 의하더라도 위 통장에서 이 사건 아파트의 관리비가 이체된 것은 2003년 11월, 12월밖에 없는 것으로 보이는 점(갑 제12호증) 등에 비추어 보면, 원고는 적어도 2004. 3. 9.경 임차인 양◎◎이 이 사건 아파트에 입주한 이후에는 이 사건 아파트에서 실제로 거주하지 아니하였다고 봄이 상당하므로(이에 반하는 갑 제14, 15, 19호증의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 박◆◆의 증언은 믿지 아니한다), 위 주민등록표의 기재는 그 추정이 번복되었다고 할 것이다.

한편, 원고는 위 주민등록표상의 기간 외에도 2003년 5월경부터 2003. 8. 28.경까지도 이 사건 아파트에서 실제 거주하였다고 주장하나, 위 주장에 부합하는 제1심 증인 박◆◆의 증언은 믿기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Ultimately, the period during which the Plaintiff resided in the apartment of this case is merely from August 29, 2003 that the lessee left the apartment of this case to March 9, 2004, and it cannot be deemed that he resided in the apartment of this case for two years. Thus, it does not constitute one house non-taxation requirement for one household under Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(3) Whether it falls under the requirements for non-taxation for living together

Article 155 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that in case where a person who possesses one house and forms one household joins the households in order to jointly live and support the lineal ascendant (including the lineal ascendant of his spouse) of 60 or more years old who possesses one house (in case of a woman, 55 or more years old), and one household comes to own two houses, the house first transferred within two years from the combining date shall be regarded as one house for one household, and the provisions of Article 154 (1) shall be applied.

그러나 위 1세대 1주택 비과세의 특례규정은 각각 1주택을 소유한 세대가 합침으로써 1세대 2주택이 되는 경우에 적용되는 것임이 법문상 명백한데(따라서 소득세법 시행령 제154조 제1항의 비과세요건과는 양립할 수 없다), 원고가 이 사건 아파트를 양도하기 전에 딸인 박◆◆과 세대를 합쳤다는 점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없고, 설령 그렇다고 하더라도 위 조항에 따른 1세대 1주택 비과세 특례를 적용받기 위해서는 마찬가지로 소득세법 시행령 제154조 제1항의 거주기간요건을 갖추어야 하므로, 위 주장도 어느 모로 보나 받아들일 수 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.