Seocho 208west 1161 ( October 20, 2008)

Whether all households can be deemed to have resided in the transferred apartment for not less than two years

In the absence of special circumstances, it is difficult to deem that two children and husbands attending elementary schools have resided in the transferring apartment for not less than two years on the ground that they are separated from their husbands and husbands, and that cash withdrawal transactions have been mainly made in the vicinity of the leased house, and that there have been no special circumstance.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 44,273,975 against the Plaintiff on March 7, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2004. 2. 27. 서울 @@구 ★★동 222 강변☆☆홈타운아파트 110동 1702호(이하 '이 사건 ☆☆아파트'라 한다)를 378,000,000원에 취득하였다. 한편 원고의 남편 김●●은 2006. 9. 22. 서울 @@구 1312-3 ○○○○클래식아파트 112동 302호(이하 '이 사건 롯데아파트'라 한다)를 취득하였다.

B. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case in △△△△, a prone, in 57,900,000, to the Mandong-si, a prone Mandong-si. The Plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case in △△△△△△ within one year after he acquired the apartment, and the Plaintiff submitted a scheduled return of transfer income tax, which is non-taxation, as one house for one household.

C. However, as of the date of the transfer of the apartment in the case of the Si/Gun/Gu, the Defendant, unlike the details entered on the resident registration (from February 27, 2004 to May 14, 2007), was in fact residing in Seongdong-gu, Seoul from March 26, 2002 to April 24, 2006 by 1, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, the 710 Gangseodong-gu, 103-2003-dong 2003-dong 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Building apartment”), and on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to reside in the apartment in the above Si/Gun/Gu in the above Si/Gun of Do for more than two years, deemed that the Plaintiff failed to meet the non-taxation requirements for one house per one household, thereby disposing the Plaintiff of KRW 86,518,480 as income tax for the year 207.

D. After January 14, 2009, the Defendant issued ex officio a corrective measure to reduce the said capital gains tax by KRW 50,593,305, and the said capital gains tax by KRW 44,273,975, respectively, on March 12, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From March 26, 2002, the Plaintiff resided in the dry apartment of this case, with his spouse Kim Il, Kim Il, two children, and he acquired the apartment of this case, and then moved into the said apartment of △△△△△ on February 27, 2004 only after the Plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case. Thereafter, on April 21, 2004, the friendship parents moved their resident registration to the above apartment of △△△△△△, and the Plaintiff moved into the apartment of this case on July 6, 2006. Therefore, the Plaintiff resided in the apartment of this case in the △△△△△△, located in the apartment of this case (from February 27, 2004 to July 6, 2006) for more than two years (from February 27, 2004 to one household, and thus, the above apartment of △△△△△△ is exempt from taxation, and thus the Defendant’s disposition of KRW 4,273,975 as indicated in the Defendant’s

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the above relevant laws and regulations, the instant apartment in Do-dong, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, constitutes one house for one household and subject to non-taxation, the Plaintiff should reside in the said apartment in Do-dong for at least two years.

(2) According to Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff transferred his/her resident registration to the apartment of Do-dong in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 27, 2004, and the plaintiff transferred his/her resident registration to the apartment of Do-dong in this case on May 15, 2007, and as evidence showing that the plaintiff's assertion conforms to Gap evidence No. 2-4, No. 9-1, No. 3 through 5, No. 10-1, and No. 2. However, according to the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-3, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5-1 to No. 8, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) the plaintiff only resided in the apartment of Do-dong in this case, and (ii) it is difficult to view the plaintiff's non-resident's 2-year residential apartment as one of the plaintiff's husband's 2-year residential apartment in this case's name and 3-year residential apartment, which the plaintiff asserted No.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the premise that the Plaintiff does not fall under one house for one household under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, on the premise that the instant apartment does not fall under one house for one household.

3. Conclusion

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