beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 19, 201, the registration of ownership transfer (sale on January 10, 2001), the Plaintiff’s name (property division on September 1, 201), the registration of ownership transfer (property division on September 1, 201), D on December 4, 2015, and E on August 24, 201 (sale on August 24, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer (sale on August 24, 2015) was completed in sequence with respect to the above land and buildings.
B. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) calculated the actual transfer value of the instant real estate as KRW 1.8 billion; (b) converted acquisition value; (c) KRW 697,254,543; and (d) reported and paid capital gains tax for the portion reverted to the transfer of one house high-priced house for one household in the year 2015.
(1) On October 4, 2016, the Defendant issued an additional notice of KRW 238,459,05 of capital gains tax for the year 2015 (=amounting to KRW 209,246,217,795 for additional tax on negligent tax returns of KRW 17,95,062 for additional tax on additional tax of KRW 17,95,062 for additional tax of KRW 216,05 for additional tax of KRW 17,251,830 for additional tax of KRW 216,05,00 for additional tax of KRW 238,46,459,05 for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that only three floors (140.46 square meters for the instant real estate), among the instant real estate, are not housing.
x) The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 10, 2017.
【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 8, 10 through 13, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In the same regard as below whether the instant disposition is lawful, the remainder except for the third floor of the instant real estate cannot be regarded as a house referred to in one household house, which is subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise is without merit.
“one household.”