The registration of the long-term rental house business operator in the Gu office and the excessive tax rate shall be determined if it is not in the tax office.

In order to become a resident's house for long-term rental, it is necessary to meet the requirements for business registration under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act by at least June 30, 2004, along with the rental business registration under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 104 (Tax Rate of Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 35,661,380 for the Plaintiff on September 11, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 19, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant housing”) to the Plaintiff, and on May 31, 2006, filed a report on the special case of one house for one household, premised on the non-taxation of one house for one household.

B. On September 15, 2006, the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff as a holder of four houses per household, and issued a revised notice of KRW 35,661,380 to the Plaintiff on September 15, 2006, by applying the heavy tax rate (60% of the tax base of capital gains tax).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on December 7, 2006, but was dismissed on December 29, 2006, and again requested the Director of the National Tax Tribunal for the adjudgment on March 28, 2007, but decided to dismiss on September 13, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) It was true that the Plaintiff had owned four or more houses on August 19, 2005, which were at the time of the transfer of the instant house. However, prior to that, the Plaintiff owned only the instant house, ○○-1, 612-1, 107, 1801, and 1906, 00 ○○○-dong, Seoul ○○-dong, 965 ○○○○-dong, 965 hereinafter “the instant rental house”) and registered as a rental house, and thereafter registered as a rental house and leased it. On October 11, 2005, the instant house was also registered under the Income Tax Act on March 16, 199, and continuously resided after acquiring it on March 16, 199. Therefore, the instant rental house is exempt from taxation without the no taxation without the law because the Plaintiff owns only the instant house except for the instant rental house, the transfer income tax of the instant house is a house which is non-taxable for at least 3 households.

(2) The Plaintiff registered a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act and operated a rental business accordingly before it is far earlier than December 29, 2003, which is the standard date for existing business operators under Article 167-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it is clear that the instant rental house constitutes a long-term rental house. Therefore, in light of the purport of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, excluding the housing falling under three or more houses for one household in order to prevent housing unsold in lots and to stabilize the housing prices, the heavy tax rate is unlawful for the following reasons that the Plaintiff failed to register a business operator under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act by June 30, 204, which is within the grace period under Article 167-2(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(A) It imposes a tax without any grounds beyond the scope of the title of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(B) Even though the essence of "rental business operator" is the same, it is imposed arbitrarily by distinguishing it from that of "rental business operator". It also goes against the principle of substantial taxation, tax equality or tax equity.

(C) The Plaintiff’s heavy tax rate of capital gains tax, which is irrelevant to the purpose of the business registration system, is also contrary to the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay value-added tax or the rental income tax, and did not have any obligation to pay for the said income tax, on the ground that the Plaintiff only received a rental deposit without being a monthly rent and maintained livelihood

(3) The Plaintiff appears to have been aware that the Plaintiff was a rental business operator, as a matter of course, in order to apply the heavy taxation rate to the previous rental business operator due to the amendment of the Income Tax Act. However, even though the Plaintiff was obligated to prevent the Plaintiff from causing unexpected damage due to retroactive legislation by notifying the purpose of the amendment of the Income Tax Act, the business registration grace period, the period of disposition grace after the application of the amended Act, and the period of disposition grace after the application of the amended Act, the Plaintiff, who did not receive any mention or guidance, was obligated to notify the registration grace period, the amended Act, and to prevent the Plaintiff from causing unexpected damage due to retroactive legislation. However, even though the Plaintiff, who did not receive any mention or guidance, was obligated to prevent the Plaintiff from causing unexpected damage due to retroactive legislation, even though the Plaintiff, who did not receive any mention or guidance, transferred the instant house after the expiration of the business registration grace period and the period of disposition grace, the imposition of heavy taxation rate violates the principle of retroactive legislation prohibition, the principle of good faith and trust protection.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 104 (Tax Rate of Transfer Income Tax)

Article 168 (Registration of Business and Assignment of Identification Number) of the Income Tax Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On October 7, 1996, the Plaintiff purchased ○○○○○○○○ apartment, 965 ○○○○○○ apartment, 406 m2 (28.95 m2), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 12, 1997, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future. On May 10, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased each of 612-○○ apartment, 612-○○ apartment, 107 1906 and 1801 m222 m2, each of 1999.

(2) After that, on November 30, 1999, the Plaintiff registered as a rental business operator with two household units of these apartment units as rental housing in accordance with the Rental Housing Act, and leased from that time. On June 21, 2001, after purchasing the instant housing, the Plaintiff changed the rental business operator’s registration adding ○○○○ apartment 406 as rental housing, and thereafter, from that time, the said ○○○ apartment 406 apartment was leased.

(3) Meanwhile, after purchasing the instant house on March 2, 1999 and completing the registration of transfer of ownership on March 16, 1999, the Plaintiff moved to and resided in the instant house from the above ○○○○ apartment 406, which had been living until then, and sold the said house to the ○○○ apartment 406, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on August 19, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] A2, A3-1 and 2, A4, A5-1 and 2, A7-1-3, A8-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether it is a taxation without any grounds or basis against the principle of no taxation without law

The term "long-term rental house" in Article 1672-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act excludes the scope of "house falling under two or more houses for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" from the "house falling under two or more houses for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree", and stipulates that the scope of "long-term rental house" is a house of a resident who has registered the business under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act and the lease business under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act in addition to the specified requirements, but the resident who has not registered the lease business under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act as of October 29, 2003, but has failed to make the registration under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act until June 30, 2004, shall be deemed to have made the registration under

According to the above provisions, in order to become a resident's house for long-term rental, at least the requirements for business registration under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act shall be met with the registration of the rental business operator under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act until June 30, 2004. As seen earlier, the plaintiff did not implement business registration under the Income Tax Act until June 30, 2004, which is the grace period for the rental business registration under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act. Since the plaintiff did not fall under the "long-term rental house" under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the rental house of this case does not fall under the "long-term rental house" under the "long-term rental house" under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and is not excluded from the "house falling under three or more houses for one household". Ultimately, since the plaintiff owns four houses for one household at the time of transferring the house of this case

(2) Whether the substance over form principle, the tax equity principle, etc. are violated

Article 168 (1) of the Income Tax Act provides that "the location of a business that starts a new business shall be registered by the chief of the competent tax office." Paragraph (3) provides that "the business operator who has made a registration of business under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deemed to have made a registration under the provisions of paragraph (1) concerning the relevant business", and Article 5 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the person who newly starts the business shall register with the chief of the competent tax office of the place of business within 20 days from the date of commencement of the business

According to the above provisions, a business operator commencing a new business shall make a business registration under the Income Tax Act or the Value-Added Tax Act to the head of the competent tax office, which aims to facilitate the identification of the taxpayer and its business contents and to promote convenience in taxation administration, such as securing base taxation and securing tax revenues, and further to realize fair taxation. Thus, even if the business operator is identical to the business operator, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of substantial taxation or the principle of tax equity, depending on whether the business operator satisfies the requirements for business registration under the Income Tax Act.

In addition, such business registration obligation under the Income Tax Act does not vary depending on the possibility of actual income tax payment depending on the excess of income. Moreover, it cannot be said that applying the increased tax rate of capital gains tax to a person who fails to perform the obligation is irrelevant to the purpose of the business registration system, and it cannot be said that it is contrary to the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making.

(3) Whether the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation and the principle of protection of trust are violated

As a premise for applying the heavy taxation rate to the plaintiff who is the former rental business operator due to the amendment of the Income Tax Act, the defendant is not individually obligated to notify the plaintiff of the purport of the amendment of the Income Tax Act, the business registration grace period, and the disposition grace period after the application of the amended Act. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the defendant is obligated to do so is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.