Suwon District Court-2018-Gudan-836 (4.05 April 2019)

Cho Jae-2018-China-920 ( July 6, 2018)

Whether an officetel other than a public record can be viewed as a house

If an officetel is not a house on the public register, but a residential officetel for the purpose of residence is confirmed, it is necessary to determine non-taxation as a house regardless of the purpose of public register.

Articles 88 and 89 of the Income Tax Act

2019-Nu-10401 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

oo Tax Director

on October 03, 2019

on 17 July 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017.

385,698,940 won (including additional duties) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the following "2. added or re-determinations". Thus, this court's reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The addition or a new determination

The following judgments shall be added with respect to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in this Court under the fifth second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance:

The Plaintiff asserted that BB used the instant officetel as an office, but the business registration was delayed due to the personal circumstances of BB, but as such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, given that BB used the instant officetel as an office. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 9 (including the serial number), the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since BB used the instant officetel as an employee at the nearby hospital of the instant officetel at the time.

○ With regard to the assertion that the imposition of additional tax emphasized by the Plaintiff in this court is illegal, the part concerning the 6th 6th 6th 13th son of the first instance judgment shall be judged again as follows

2) Determination as to the assertion that the imposition of penalty tax is illegal

Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law. If a taxpayer is not aware of his/her obligations, or there is a circumstance that it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations to the party concerned, etc., and there is no justifiable reason to impose an additional tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003).

In this case, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the following: (a) the internal structure and status of the instant officetel as seen earlier; (b) the time of the transfer of the instant apartment; and (c) the Plaintiff and the owner of the instant officetel leased the instant officetel for each residential purpose; and (d) the Plaintiff appears to have recognized or been able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be used at any time as able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to able to be able to able to able to able to able to able to able to able to

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted, and the part of the disposition of this case imposing additional tax is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.