Seoul High Court 2012Nu17799 ( November 30, 2012)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0168 (Law No. 26, 2011)

(Trial poorness) It can be seen that all members of the household do not reside together, but meet the requirements of one house residing for one household.

(C) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the resident's spouse is a spouse, and the resident's spouse is a spouse, and the resident's spouse does not have the right to live in the relevant house. Thus, the resident's spouse does not have the right to live in the house, and the resident's spouse does not have the right to live in the house.

2012Nu28964 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park AA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu17799 Decided November 30, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment of the court below and the appellate brief all of the records of this case, but the appellant's ground of appeal is not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or it is recognized that there is no reason. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final