1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Since the Plaintiff and his spouse use the instant apartment as a villa, it does not fall under “house” under Article 89(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, and ② even if the villa does not fall under the house under Article 89(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, it forms a non-taxation practice that does not regard the villa as a house, and ③ as well as ③ as well as the tax office expressed its view that the instant apartment is not a house, and as the Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment under the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant apartment, the instant disposition goes against the principle of trust protection.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

On November 2016, 2016, the first instance judgment No. 5, No. 13 of the 13th Do, “The Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do ,” as follows: (a) around November 201, the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do 100,000, G 6.5 million won per annum. (b) The Do Do Do Do 1 decided that the Do Do Do Do Do Do decided that the Do Do Do Do 1 owns another building; and (c) whether another building constitutes “house” under Article 89(1) 3(a) of the former Income Tax Act refers to