Seocho 201J 2969 (No. 22, 2011)

It does not constitute one house for one household, having another house at the time of transfer of the right to sell;

It can be recognized that a member of the association owns another house at the time of the transfer of a right to sell the house and that a right to sell the house has been transferred after a lapse of one year from the date of acquisition of another house. Therefore, the argument that the transfer of a right to sell the house constitutes

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2011Gudan28700 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

June 5, 2012

July 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 3, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on March 3, 2010 (which appears to be a clerical error on March 31, 2010) is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 30, 2002, the Plaintiff succeeded to the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Apartment 35,000 Dong 000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) and the area where the apartment of this case is located ( XX3 apartment reconstruction rearrangement project association) was approved on November 29, 2002.

(B) The Plaintiff, as a member of the Plaintiff, entered into a sales contract with the said union on an apartment building (00 000 dong, 000) to be newly constructed instead of the instant apartment building, and on April 27, 2006, transferred the said association member’s right to sell in lots (hereinafter “instant right to sell in lots”) to Nonparty Gamba and one other party on April 27, 2006, and did not report capital gains tax. The Defendant on March 31, 2010, notified the Plaintiff on March 31, 200 (the purchase price for the instant right) that the acquisition price for the instant right to sell in lots was KRW 00,00,000 for capital gains tax corresponding to the year 206 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), and [the grounds for recognition], without any dispute, the purport of each entry in Gap’s subparagraphs 1, 4, 8 through 14, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number).

2. Whether the disposition is invalidated;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff transferred the sales right of this case on April 19, 2006, and it was one house for one household on the basis of the date of the above transfer. Therefore, although the transfer of the sales right of this case constitutes a non-taxation of one house for one household, the disposition of this case, which was otherwise reported, asserts that the defect is serious and obvious and thus null and void.

The defendant asserts that even if the date of assignment alleged by the plaintiff is based on the date of assignment, the plaintiff has another house (Seoul Gangnam-gu apartment XX 00 000 dong) and does not constitute one house for one household.

B. Determination

In the administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the invalidity confirmation, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void.

In this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the disposition of this case as null and void only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments by the above evidence, even if based on the date of transfer by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff acquires and holds the right of sale of this case in addition to the right of sale of this case in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 443 00 m00 and 000 on June 9, 2003, and can only recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the right of sale of this case after the lapse of one year from the time of the acquisition of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition i.e., I.