1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax of 146,421,960 won and special rural development tax of 2015 for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2016 and 4,955.

Details of the disposition

A. On September 5, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired 2/5 shares of B, 95.90 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul, and 36.36 square meters in a single-story house (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the ground, by inheritance (an acquisition of 3/5 shares in Namdong C), and entered into a contract to transfer 66.1.2 million won in a company of Jungdong Co., Ltd on October 14, 2014, and entered into a contract to transfer 60 million won in a company of Jungdong Co., Ltd (total transfer proceeds of KRW 1.65 billion), and received the full payment of the purchase price on March 19, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 24, 2015.

B. On March 24, 2015, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 7,059,140 to the Defendant for the transfer income tax for 2015, by applying the provisions on the calculation of transfer margin on expensive houses under Article 160 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

C. However, on December 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and notify capital gains tax of KRW 146,421,960 and special rural development tax of KRW 4,95,420 to the Plaintiff for the year 2015 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by deeming that the instant building was a house on the public register, but actually used for business (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 12, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 12, Eul evidence 1 (including angles, numbers, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the structure of the instant building was originally owned by the Plaintiff and C used the instant building as a printing shop for about twenty (20) years, but the Plaintiff and C maintained the residential function as it was, and actually resided in the Plaintiff’s family from around 1941 to November 1, 198, and C resided from around December 2014 to March 2015, which was the time of transfer, and thus, the instant building constitutes a housing, and thus, the instant disposition against this is unlawful.

(b) relevant legislation;