beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 28, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired and owned C Apartment E-dong 2605 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) out of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and transferred the apartment to D and E in KRW 1,868,00,000 on May 20, 2016.
B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant apartment is subject to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same).
Based on the premise that the transfer of one house for one household constitutes “one house for one household” as prescribed by Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27829, Feb. 3, 2017; hereinafter the same), the Defendant reported and paid KRW 23,157,470 to the Defendant on July 22, 2016.
C. However, as of May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s spouse F owned Nos. 1326 and 1329 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter “instant officetel 1326,” “the instant officetels 1329,” and the instant officetel 1329, each of the instant officetels falls under the instant officetels, and thus, the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes a house. Thus, Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act Article 89(1)3 of the instant officetel is applicable to the instant officetels.
(1) On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 290,57,540 (including additional tax) for the year 2016, as well as the transfer of one house by one household under Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"
(D) On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 29, 2017, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on November 30, 2017. [The purport of the entirety of the arguments and arguments is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 5-1, 1-2,
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. At the time of the transfer of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, each of the instant officetels is in a factory laboratory immediately after the new construction, and is in a form approved for business purposes.