Early High Court Decision 201J 4948 ( October 22, 2012)

It is difficult to recognize as meeting the requirements for residence for not less than two years.

In light of the fact that a move-in report was filed against a person who is separated from his/her family and that he/she leased an apartment on condition that one of the transferred apartments was used, but it is difficult to recognize that he/she had satisfied the requirements for residence for at least two years in light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that he/she did not have locked or cooked in the transferred apartment.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2012Guhap5092 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Chapter AA

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

September 5, 2012

October 10, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on September 1, 201 with respect to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 (the date of the disposition was stated in the complaint as of September 26, 201, while the date of disposition was recorded in the complaint as of September 26, 201, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, is September 1, 201).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 2001, the Plaintiff, as his father, donated No. 000 O apartment 00,000 (hereinafter “previous apartment”) from the Gangnam-gu O-dong, Seoul, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name on May 17, 2001.

B. Along with the reconstruction of the previous apartment, the Plaintiff purchased OO 000 OO 000 0000 0000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) in lots, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in its name on March 16, 2006.

C. On August 14, 2009, the Plaintiff sold the instant apartment to the competentCC on October 12, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment on October 12, 2009, and on May 18, 201, reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on the ground that the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes one household’s non-taxable housing.

D. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not reside in the previous apartment and the instant apartment for at least two years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On October 24, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 24, 201, and was dismissed on February 22, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff has resided in the previous apartment and the apartment in this case for more than two years, and the disposition of this case on the premise different from that of this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff, along with his family (two wife Kim H and children, and hereinafter the same shall apply), filed a move-in report with the former Amart on June 23, 2001, and resided before December 27, 2001, made a move-in report with the parent on December 27, 2001, and resided until April 29, 2002 after filing a move-in report with the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong 00000, where the parent resided, and again made a move-in report with the former apartment until October 5, 2002, and resided until December 27, 2006.

2) On January 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to the apartment of this case with his family on January 23, 2007, and again filed a move-in report with his family on January 23, 2007, with his family, with his family, on January 23, 2007, and on February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the head of 00 OCO-dong 000,000 OCO-dong 00, 000, and on April 16, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with his family on July 24, 2012.

3) On November 5, 2005, before the Plaintiff’s moving-in to the apartment of this case, the UB representing the Plaintiff was determined on November 5, 2005 with the Plaintiff’s family, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 000, monthly rent of KRW 000, and December 30, 2005 through December 29, 2006, and one small room was determined to be used by the Plaintiff. On November 13, 2006, one of the apartment of this case was leased to be used by the Plaintiff, and on November 13, 2006, the remainder of the apartment of this case, other than the small room, was leased to KRW 00, and KRW 00, monthly rent of the apartment of this case was leased to be KRW 00, and Section II was residing from the apartment of this case until December 8, 207.

4) The list of occupants of the instant apartment is written by Park J (EJA) or Han II as the householder, and the Plaintiff is written as Park J and OO Park or Han II as the cohabitant.

5) On August 2, 2011, Park J moved to the staff of the Defendant on December 30, 2005, and resided in the instant apartment on December 29, 2006. As the relationship between her living together (O) and Canada as a permanent resident of Canada and Korea, she managed her residence in the instant apartment site located in Korea and her back of her birth. On the other hand, even though the Plaintiff was using a small number of rooms, she was living in the house for a period of time when she was living, she was very rare in the case where she was living in the house, and she did not do so, she did not think that she was living in the house to the extent that she was faced with clothes and clothes for drinking, and she did not think that she was living in the house, and even if she was unable to provide the Plaintiff, she did not provide a written confirmation to the effect that she was able to enter the house (2).

6) According to the integrated national tax network, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have acquired earned income equivalent to KRW 000 or KRW 000 per annum from 2001 to 2010, such as OCOA, OONF, and OOB, Inc.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 8, and Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

살피건대， '1세대 1주택과 이에 부수되는 토지'에 해당되어 양도소득세의 비과세요 건을 충족하고 있다는 사실에 관하여는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 납세의무자에게 입증책 임이 있다. 또한 비과세대상이 되는 1세대 1주택의 거주기간을 주민등록표상의 전입일 자로부터 전출일자까지의 기간에 의하여 계산하도록 규정한 소득세법 시행령(2010. 2. 18. 대통령령 제22034호로 개정되기 전의 것，이하 같다) 제154조 제5항의 규정은 입 증의 편의를 위한 것에 지나지 않고，거주사실의 인정을 오로지 주민등록표상의 기재 만에 의하여야 한다는 취지라고 볼 수 없다. 이 사건에 관하여 보건대， 앞서 본 사실관계 및 이에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정，즉 ① 서울에 소재하는 주택을 양도한 경우 소득세법(2009. 12. 31. 법률 제9897호로 개정되기 전의 것， 이하 같다) 제89조 제1항 제3호， 소득세법 시행령 제 154조에서 정한 1세대 1주택 비과세대상이 되기 위해서는 거주자 및 그 배우자가 그 들과 동일한 주소 또는 거소에서 생계를 같이 하는 가족과 함께 구성하는 1세대가 양 도일 현재 국내에 1주택을 보유하고 있는 경우로서 보유기간이 3년 이상이고 그 보유 기간 중 거주기간이 2년 이상이어야 하는바， 원고는 2001. 6. 23.부터 2001. 12. 27.까 지 및 2002. 4. 29.부터 2002. 10. 5.까지는 가족과 함께 종전 아파트로 전입신고를 하 고 거주하였으나， 2006. 1. 2.부터 2007. 1. 23.까지는 가족과 떨어져 혼자 이 사건 아 파트로 전입신고를 한 점，② 원고는 원고가 경찰공무원인 처 김HH와 달리 일정한 직업이 없어 밥벌이를 하기 위해 사실상 떠돌이 생활을 하다가 종전 아파트가 재건축 되어 가족과 함께 이 사건 아파트로 입주하였으나， 부모님이 없는 상태에서 가족과 부딪치며 사는 것이 어색했을 뿐만 아니라 경제적 형편이 어렵고， 어머니인 강KK가 암으로 투병 중이었기 때문에 김HH는 강KK를 돌보기 위하여 자녀들과 함께 부모님이 거주하는 성남시 분당구 OO동 000에서 거주하기로 하고，원고는 이 사건 아파트 중 방 1개를 사용하는 조건으로 OO 박에게 이 사건 아파트를 임대하였다고 주장하고 있는바，원고가 주장하는 사정만으로는 보유기간 및 거주기간의 제한을 받지 아니 하거나 배우자가 없는 때에도 1세대로 인정하는 소득세법 시행령 제154조 제1항 단서 각 호， 제2항 각 호，소득세법 시행규칙 제71조 제3항 등에 해당한다고 볼 수 없는 점，③ '거주'란 일정한 곳에 머물러 사는 것을 의미하는바，원고가 이 사건 아파트에서 잠을 자거나 취사를 하는 경우는 거의 없고， 가끔 이 사건 아파트에 들러 옷을 갈아입은 정도만으로는 이 사건 아파트에서 '거주'하였다고 보기 어려운 점，④ 원고는 이 사건 2012. 9. 5.자 준비서면에서 원고의 경제적 무능력으로 인하여 김HH와 오랜 기간 별거생활을 하였다고 주장하고 있으나 원고는 2001년부터 2010년까지 사이에 주식회사 OOOO코퍼레이션 주식회사 OO영엔터프라이즈， 주식회사 OO교구 등에서 연 000원 내지 000원 상당의 근로소득을 취득한 것으로 보이고(원고는 주식회사 OO교구는 원고의 숙부가 운영하던 회사로서 실제로 원고가 위 회사에서 근무하지 않았고，급여는 유BB에게 지급되었다고 주장하고 있으나，이를 인정할 증거가 없다)，원고와 사이가 좋지 않아 오랜 기간 별거생활을 하였다는 김HH가 원고의 부모님과 함께 거주하며 암 투병 중이던 원고의 어머니를 돌보았다는 것은 쉽게 납득하기 어려운 점，⑤ 원고가 종전 아파트 및 이 사건 아파트로의 총 전입신고 기간이 2001. 6. 23.부터 2001. 12. 27.까지 188일 2002. 4. 29.부터 2002. 10. 5.까지 160일， 2006. 1. 2.부터 2007. 1. 23.까지 387일 총 735일(= 188일 + 160일 + 387일)로서 2년 5일이 되어 1세대 1주택 비과세요건인 2년 이상 거주요건을 충족하자마자 사이가 좋지 않아 오랜 기간 별거생활을 하였다고 주장하는 김HH 등 가족과 함께 성남시 분당구 OO동 00로 전입신고를 한 점 등 여러 사정을 종합하면， 갑 제3， 4， 5， 6， 8호증의 각 기 재만으로는 원고가 종전 아파트 및 이 사건 아파트에서 2년 이상 거주하였다는 사실을 인정하기 어렵고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로， 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.