Busan District Court 2018-Guhap-716 (No. 25, 2018)

one household fails to meet the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household;

In determining whether one house for one household subject to non-taxation exists, whether a house actually used or used for profit is not required in determining whether a house for one household subject to non-taxation is one)

2018Nu21583 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax, etc.

OOOO

AA Head of the Tax Office

Busan District Court 2018Guhap716

September 12, 2018

October 10, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax for the plaintiff on September 1, 2017, 36, capital gains tax for the plaintiff in 2016, capital gains tax for the plaintiff,

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The grounds for this Court’s explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the description,” under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the argument that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case with the Dong Life BaB around April 2002 can not be accepted in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen comprehensively as the whole in the statement No. 4-1 to No. 4 of the evidence No. 4-1 and the purport of the entire argument.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate under the name of the Plaintiff, i.e., the O OO-dong OCC 4 XX, 5 XX, 6 XX, and 8 XX over four times from May 2006 to June XX, 2007. Even if the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate due to the relationship residing in DD, it is difficult to obtain the reasons that the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate under the name of the Plaintiff after entering Korea. The Plaintiff did not specifically explain this.

(B) If the Plaintiff owned the instant real estate jointly with the largestB as alleged by the Plaintiff, it seems reasonable that the Plaintiff bears 1/2 of the various expenses incurred in relation to the instant real estate, including property tax, and the Plaintiff is not able to submit any data.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.