Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan2294 ( October 26, 2014)

2013west 1722 (2013.08.07)

The first and second houses in this case are separate houses, not a house, and are therefore subject to non-taxation for one household.

In full view of the fact that the individual land price and individual housing price have been calculated respectively, the different households reside in each other, trade with independent real estate, and the plaintiff also prepares a separate sales contract, and the main entrance is seen separately, it is difficult to regard the first and second houses of this case as being subject to non-taxation for one household because they fall under a separate house, not a house.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of one house for one household under Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2014Nu48216 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

AA, AB

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan2294 decided March 26, 2014

September 25, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is partially dismissed as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiffs' assertion in the appellate court as follows. Thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Parts used for cutting.

Then, "The first, second and second houses and their appurtenant lands cannot be deemed to be eligible for non-taxation for one household" as a whole", and "the second and second houses and their appurtenant lands in this case contain capital gains tax on the second houses and their appurtenant lands" (including capital gains tax on the second houses in this case; for the first houses and their appurtenant lands in this case, capital gains tax is not imposed on the ground that "one house for one household is non-taxation for one household".

Then, “The facts can be recognized,” from the third bottom of the upper part, the following is added to “(the respective 1, 28 transcript of each register) of the evidence Nos. 27 and 28 additionally submitted by the appellate court, as above, the sales amount is stated in the above-mentioned sales contract, but it appears that the sales amount is changed as it is as stated in the above sales contract.”

○ 제6쪽 이하의 ��관련 법령��에 이 판결 별지 ��관련 법령��의 내용의 추가한다.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the first, second and second houses and their appurtenant lands are subject to non-taxation for one household as a whole, the instant disposition that imposed capital gains tax on the second houses and their appurtenant lands under different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) The term "house" under Article 89 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014); and Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23887, Jun. 29, 2012) means a building used for a residence, regardless of whether a use classification, building, or alteration of the use of a house is permitted by an authority on the public register, such as a house ledger, or whether the use of a house is permitted or registered, and so long as the actual use is deemed as a house and can be seen as a house as a whole by social norms, it does not necessarily mean that the site is one unit of land (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10367, Aug. 18, 1992).

2) In the instant case, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings in each statement and image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 20, 21, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including Serial numbers), i.e., the site of the instant house No. 1 is the land No. 2, and the site of the instant house No. 2 is the land No. 1, and the land No. 2 is the separate lot, ② the building management ledger is the building No. 1 and 2, and the location, structure, and area of the instant land No. 1 and 2 are different independent buildings, ③ the individual land price and individual housing price of the instant case No. 1 and 2 are calculated and announced separately, ④ the building No. 1 and 2 of this case are the land No. 1 and 2 of this case, and the entire entrance No. 1 and 2 of this case can not be seen as being separate from the entrance of the instant house No. 1 and 2 of this case. 2 of this case.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as all of the grounds are groundless.