Seoul High Court 2017Nu58795 ( December 28, 2017)

(Trialless Conduct) The medical care center for the elderly of this case does not constitute one house for one household.

(The main point of this case is that the building in this case is used as a common facility for the care of the aged, and it cannot be viewed as a house for the residence at the time of transfer, so it does not apply to one household tax exemption

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;

2017Du70373 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ Kim

*The Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu58795 Decided 28, 2017

February 28, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Examining the judgment below and the grounds of appeal, since it is clear that the appellant’s ground of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Trial Procedure, and it is therefore dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.