Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan9154 (Law No. 13, 2013)

Where the previous house is destroyed and newly constructed, the period of holding the previous house shall be added to the amount of special deduction for long-term holding of the land for one household.

(1) Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the period of possession and residence of the destroyed house and the newly-built house shall be aggregated when determining the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household. It is reasonable to interpret that the period of possession should be aggregated in the case of one house for one household which fails to meet the requirements for non

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu48684 Disposition of revocation of request for capital gains tax rectification

NewA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Gudan9154 decided September 13, 2013

April 16, 2014

April 23, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant are dismissed.

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

3. The rejection disposition in paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be corrected as "the part exceeding the OO won in the refusal disposition".

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's refusal disposition against the plaintiff on May 7, 2012 against the payment of the transfer income tax for the year 2008.

58,495,350 won or more shall be revoked (record the part which the plaintiff is subject to revocation)

The plaintiff is clear that it is not the whole of the above rejection disposition, but the remaining part except the OO members decided to be reduced, and the plaintiff corrected such claim in this court).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, except where "paragraph (2)" in the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed "Article 95 (2)", and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. Conclusion

The decision of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed: Provided, That the "disposition of refusal" in paragraph (1) of the decision of the first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the part exceeding the OO members in the refusal disposition, and such correction is corrected.