early 2010 Heavy1922 (Law No. 1037, 2010)

Where all members of a household do not reside in a transferred house for at least two years, they shall not be subject to non-taxation.

The spouse and children cannot be deemed to have resided in the transferred house for more than two years, and all members of the household shall not be deemed to have moved to another Si/Gun for the treatment of skin infection, so the transferred house shall not be deemed to have been transferred to one household subject to non-taxation.

2010Guhap1652 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park XX

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

June 8, 2011

July 6, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 114,861,230 for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2010 (the date of the disposition entered in the complaint seems to have been erroneous).

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On January 12, 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed and reported transfer margin of the amount exceeding 600 million won of the transfer income tax on the transfer margin of the apartment in excess of 78,023,460 won among the transfer proceeds of the purchase price, on the ground that the transfer of the apartment in this case constitutes a transfer of high-priced house which is not taxable as one house for one household, and that the transfer proceeds of the apartment in this case constituted 78,023,460 won among the transfer proceeds of the purchase price. The Plaintiff did not pay the said amount.

B. On March 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the fact that the wife and his wife, who are the Plaintiff’s household members, did not reside in the instant apartment for not less than two years; (b) excluded the application of the non-taxation provisions on the transfer of one house for one household; and (c) corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 114,861,230 for the transfer income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on May 31, 2010, but was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case, the plaintiff's family members suffered from Atopy skin infection due to New Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Eg

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9537, Jan. 24, 2003).

According to the income tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes, in order for a household to be exempted from taxation because the transfer of a house in a new urban area designated and publicly notified as a prearranged area for housing site development falls under the transfer of one house by one household, in principle, one household comprised of residents, spouse, and children, etc. shall have the relevant house for not less than three years and reside in the said house for not less than two years during the retention period: Provided, That in cases where all one household transfers the house to another Si/Gun and has resided in the said house for not less than one year due to unavoidable reasons, such as medical treatment or recuperation for a disease requiring medical treatment or recuperation for not less than one year, it shall not be subject to restrictions on the retention period

In light of the overall purport of pleadings, Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and Eul's evidence Nos. 6 through 9, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's spouse's fixedB and his children's YO, for the period from Jan. 12, 2005 to Jan. 18, 2008, owned the apartment of this case, shall not be deemed to have been transferred only to the apartment of this case and only from Jan. 24, 2005 to May 29, 2005, the plaintiff's spouse's fixedB and children's YO, who formed the plaintiff and one household's family members' own house of this case, could not be deemed to have been transferred to the above apartment of this case's 1, 200 O apartment house No. 000,000, which were located in the vicinity of the above apartment of this case's 1, 207.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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