Busan District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-23893 ( October 29, 2016)

Cho Jae-2015- Busan District Court-2774 (2015.07)

Whether it is a house or not shall be determined by whether it is a building actually used for residence.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) Employees have been employed as a lodging, have an independent form of residence, and it is difficult to see that the function as a permanent kitchen is lost, in the case of transfer, it is anticipated to be transferred to a residential building, and it seems to have been used as a residence, such as the fact that the employees have been used as a lodging house.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Busan High Court 2016Nu20395

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2015Guhap23893 Decided January 29, 2016

June 15, 2016

July 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2015, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 3, 2015.

The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment made by the court for this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the plaintiff basically repeats the same argument in the court of first instance even in the trial, and even if the plaintiff examines the allegations and reasons that have been partially supplemented in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.