Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Group-5480 (Law No. 18, 2018)

Cho High-2017west-444 ( December 04, 2017)

Where it falls under three houses temporarily for one household due to a delay in the date of settling the balance due to unavoidable circumstances, the special provisions on non-taxation for two houses shall not apply.

As long as the instant house was owned by 3 houses at the time of transfer, it cannot be viewed as "temporaryly two houses", and thus, it cannot be applied for non-taxation.

Article 155(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Special case of one household

2018Nu59214 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

OO

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2018Gudan5480 decided July 18, 2018

March 4, 2019

March 20, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 338,146,870 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2017 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is that the first trial except for the following additional parts:

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the resolution is the same as the entry in the reasoning of the resolution, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

○ At the 6th bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

[Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act provides that the date of liquidation of the price shall be deemed the date of transfer in cases where the date of liquidation of the price is clear regarding the period of transfer of assets. "The date of liquidation of the price" under the above provision refers to the date of actual payment of the price, not the date of the remainder payment agreement stipulated in the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1223, Apr. 28, 1992). Even if a sales contract was concluded, the transfer under the Income Tax Act shall not be deemed to have been made unless the price is fully paid (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4980, Mar. 23, 1993). Even if considering the above circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the transfer date of the house of this case shall be deemed to be September 8, 2016, which is the date of settlement of the balance, and it shall be determined based on whether the requirements stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of this case was met).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.