Cases which judged that a “house” under Article 5(6)(i) of the Income Tax Act falls under the category of “house”

The first floor and second floor of the third floor of the building newly built as a reinforced concrete building and a store are stores and offices, but the third floor of the building is virtually available as a house and two rooms, kitchen and one other residential facilities are installed so that actual use can be used as a house and one house, so that actual use can be used as a house. If a household has entered the fact that it has moved into the building under the resident registration card, such building constitutes a house.

Article 5 (6) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Plaintiff

Head of Southern District Tax Office

1. Of the disposition of KRW 14,421,278 and the said defense tax amount of KRW 2,884,254 as notified by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 16, 1983, the part that exceeds KRW 4,911,255 and the defense tax amount of KRW 491,125 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

1) The primary purport of the claim is revoked on June 16, 1983 the imposition of capital gains tax of 14,421,278 won, defense tax of 2,84,254 won against the plaintiff on June 16, 1983 by the defendant.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

2) Preliminary claim: Disposition 1 and judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant.

On August 23, 1979, the Plaintiff transferred 74 square meters of the land located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number omitted) and 1.88 square meters of the building to Nonparty 1. At the time, Nonparty 2 owned three buildings on the same Dong (number omitted) as the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty 2 at the time. On June 16, 1983, the Defendant deemed part of the above three-story building in the name of Nonparty 2 as a house on June 16, 1983, and accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred the house as a house of two houses for one household, and accordingly, imposed the capital gains tax amount of KRW 14,575,050 and the said tax amount of KRW 2,915,009,09, and the said tax amount of KRW 14,421,278, the said tax amount was reduced to KRW 284,2854 and the parties did not dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff's attorney, first, is the property of this case transferred by the plaintiff on August 23, 1979, and it was true that the first floor and the second floor are the stores and offices located in the 3rd floor located in the 3rd floor located in the new road (number omitted) which is owned by the plaintiff's wife, but since the 3rd floor of the building is not a house, it is not a house, and it is also a store and office, it is improper that the defendant recognized the 3rd floor as a house

Second, even if the rate of the transfer value of the above house transferred by the plaintiff does not correspond to one house for one household, it is determined in the tax imposition method to calculate the transfer value as it falls under the specific area designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of the transfer of the house in this case, and if the rate of the transfer value is not determined in order to calculate the transfer value, the acquisition value and the transfer value should be calculated according to the standard market price under the Local Tax Act and the transfer income tax should be imposed. However, the defendant argued that the transfer income tax should be revoked because it is unlawful to impose the transfer income tax by calculating the transfer value by the price index, which is different from the transfer value by the rate method.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts: (a) Nos. 3, 6, 1, 8-1, 2, 5, 2-2, 3-1, 3-1 through 8, 4-1, 4-1, 5, and 3-3 of the Plaintiff’s 2’s 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-1 and 5-3 of the above 1973 building was newly built as the 3-5-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 1, 3-2, 1, and 5-2, and 1-1, 196, 196-1, 3-1, 3-1, 5-2, 1, 196, and 1-6, 1,000,000-1,000-1,00-7,000.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's transferred house constitutes two houses for one household together with the above three-story building owned by the non-party 2, the argument that it is a single house for one household and that it is exempt from taxation is groundless.

Next, according to the purport of the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 without dispute over the establishment of capital gains tax, etc., the plaintiff acquired the land of the above new-dong Housing on May 14, 1959, and newly built and owned the house on December 31, 1961, and transferred it to another person on August 23, 1979. The National Tax Service notice 78-23 and 24 announced that new-dong area was designated and announced as a specific district on July 19, 1978, and the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the new-dong area did not implement the preliminary return of capital gains tax or the final return of capital gains tax, etc. while transferring the above housing, and the acquisition value and transfer value should be calculated by the standard market price of taxation under the Local Tax Act, and if the capital gains tax, etc. is calculated by such method, the acquisition value and transfer value shall be calculated by the tax base of capital gains tax as stated in the separate sheet.

Therefore, the transfer value of the real estate of this case is unlawful since the part exceeding the amount claimed by the plaintiff within the limit of the transfer income tax amount calculated by the method of calculating the standard market price in the tax disposition of this case, which was calculated by multiplying the transfer price calculated by applying the above ratio by the 1979 by the ratio, and the acquisition value is calculated by multiplying the transfer price calculated by applying the above ratio by the land price index, and the transfer price of this case exceeds the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed without merit, and is decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)