Whether it falls under one house for one household

Since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was under thirty years of age at the time of the transfer of the instant house and that there was income above the minimum cost of living, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff constituted the same household as the mother A as of the date of transfer

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2016Gudan1510 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

2016.09.30

November 04, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 15,481,190 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 2, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○ 401-1/2 shares from the mother’s largestA (hereinafter “instant housing”) and transferred them to the expropriation procedure on December 11, 2009. The Plaintiff did not report and pay the transfer income tax by the deadline for filing a transfer income tax return.

B. On September 13, 2012, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was a mother who had two houses at the time of the transfer; (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 12,554,90 of the transfer income tax for the year 2009; (c) the Plaintiff filed a request for review on January 22, 2015; and (d) the Defendant’s notice of tax payment to the Plaintiff was revoked on the ground that the service of the Defendant’s notice of tax payment to the Plaintiff was invalid; and (d) the Defendant again decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 15,481,190 (including additional tax) for the transfer income tax for the year 2009.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff re-requested for review, but was dismissed on March 8, 2016.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, after acquiring the instant house, resided with the Dong GB and resided with the Dong GB, is separate from the mother LA.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff received income from the time of transfer, insurance allowance, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff constituted an independent household with the mother. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for non-taxation on one house for one household as a member of the mother leastA.

B. Determination

Article 89(1)3 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that where one household comprised of the residents and their spouse together with the family members who share the same livelihood at the same address or same place of residence as the transfer date possesses one house in Korea as of the date of transfer, it constitutes one house non-taxation requirement for one household. Article 89(2)1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that even if there is no spouse, "where the age of the relevant resident is 30 or more years old," or "where the Plaintiff is able to maintain an independent livelihood while managing and maintaining the house or land which is owned by the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was under 30 years old at the time of transfer of the instant house, and the Plaintiff’s mother was possessing the same house separate from the global income at the time of transfer, there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s total earned income in the tax office or its total income for 2000 years thereafter.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.