Since the instant disposition was imposed according to the basic tax rate, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the heavy tax rate is applied is without merit.

As long as a taxation was conducted based on the basic tax rate under the premise that the housing does not constitute two houses for one household, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the heavy tax rate is applied is without merit.

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Jeonju District Court-2017-Gu Group-794 (O. 21, 2018)

A

O Head of tax office

2018.03.21

2018.04.05

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 87,389,020 (hereinafter referred to as "instant disposition for convenience") imposed on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2016 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on August 1, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. 이 사건 처분이 이루어진 배경(☞ 다툼 없는 사실)

가. 원고는 2003. 11. 14. 취득한 2채의 아파트 9☞ OO OO구 OO동 OOO OO 아파트 OO동 OOO호(이하 편의상 '이 사건 아파트'라고 한다)와 같은 아파트 O동 OOO호 를 보유하고 있다가, 2010. 10. 25. 이 사건 아파트를 양도하였음에도 양도소득세를 신고・납부하지 않았다.

B. Pursuant to Article 104(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same), the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposes capital gains tax calculated by applying the basic tax rate to the tax base calculated by applying the basic tax rate to the Plaintiff based on the transfer value of the instant apartment as KRW 678 million, and the acquisition value as KRW 225 million. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on December 29, 2016, but the request for examination was not accepted on June 20, 2017.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case in this case is unlawful as the ground for the claim of this case and the revocation of the disposition in this case is unlawful.

B. In light of the premise that the apartment house of this case falls under Article 167-5 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and does not fall under "two houses for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 104 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act, the disposition of this case by applying Article 104 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act was conducted based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes (the defendant is not entitled to accept the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the basic tax rate is applied in accordance with Article 14 of the Addenda of the former Income Tax Act while calculating the transfer income tax of the apartment of this case). Since the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes cannot be seen as violating the Constitution including the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the relevant laws and regulations are contrary to the so-called "the principle of tax principle" (On the other hand, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the acts of the tax authority, the average taxpayer's expression of opinion that the tax authority gave through public opinion should be reasonable and reasonable and reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim of this case since the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair as well as there are no other illegal grounds for the disposition of this case.