Suwon District Court 2010Guhap1700, 208.24

early 209 middle 2590 ( October 31, 2010)

Where a house is acquired before inheritance commences, and becomes two houses, the provisions of non-taxation on one house for one household shall not be applied.

(The same as the judgment of the first instance) Where a person becomes two houses due to inheritance and transfers the general house, it shall be exempt from taxation, but the provisions of non-taxation for one household shall not apply where he/she becomes two houses after acquiring a house before the commencement of inheritance.

2010Nu3149 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

KoreaA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap1700 Decided August 24, 2010

April 20, 2011

May 18, 201

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 16,020,80 against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning of this Court is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

The fourth to the fifth shall be deleted from the fourth to the fifth, and the parts shall be advanced as follows:

[Attachment Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-4, the defendant may recognize the fact that the necessary expenses for capital gains of the building of this case are calculated by means of estimated deduction pursuant to Article 97 (3) 2 and 1 (b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007), Article 163 (6) 2 and 163 (12), and Article 176-2 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20516 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 163 (6) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20516 of Dec. 31, 2007).

Therefore, in this case, even if, as alleged by the Plaintiff on September 9, 2002, the instant building owned by the Plaintiff and the instant single-story house on the ground of ○○○○○-dong 313-3, ○○○○○-dong, one of which was owned by ParkA, was fire and the 68,000,000 won was required with the repair cost of the instant building, it cannot be deducted as necessary expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit).

2. Consultations

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal filed by the Plaintiff is rejected.