early 2012west 4518

Each house, which is a separate building constructed on the land of the same lot number, shall not be subject to the non-taxation provisions for one house for one household.

In light of the fact that the instant operation and bareboat house are registered individually, the entrance is physically separated, and the multi-household house has been continuously leased to a third party, etc., it is difficult to deem that the inside and outside of the Plaintiff has been owned for the purpose of using the entire two buildings as one house.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

2013Gudan449 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Director of the District Office

August 28, 2013

October 30, 2013

1. The part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax on August 16, 2012 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition by the Defendant on August 16, 2012 against the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax and the OOOO of resident tax shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband, DoB and thisCC, the Plaintiff’s husband, owned each of 1/2 shares of 1/2 of the OO-dong 1104-1 site 329.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on August 4, 1982.

B. Two buildings were constructed on the land of this case. Two buildings were built on the ground of brick slves slves dub, cement floor, and 2-storys 7.02 square meters (23 square meters) of each floor, 1st floor and 2-storys 7.02 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "family housing"), and registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the future of December 9, 1982, and the building with 70.74 square meters of each floor, 2nd floor, and 1st floor, and 2nd floor of the brick slves slives slives slives slives slives slives slives ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves.

C. On the other hand, the above operated house and the B-dong house are multi-family houses with separate gas measuring devices, which are divided into a room where independent life is possible, and the entrance and exit of the unit are separate. In addition, the Plaintiff resided in and outside of the operating house, and the rest of the household was leased to some relatives or third parties.

D. On July 31, 1983, thisCC died and owned 1/2 shares and Nadong houses were succeeded to their wife and children, including the Plaintiff, and the entire inheritance shares were transferred to the Plaintiff on April 10, 1987.

E. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff and branchB transferred the instant land, A, B, and B’s house to Austria, and then considered it as one house, and reported and paid the transfer income tax to the Defendant on August 31, 201 as one house for one household.

F. On August 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the same house was a separate house; and (b) determined that it constitutes two houses for one household; and (c) imposed OOO on the Plaintiff on August 10, 2012 the transfer income tax for the portion reverted to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing the transfer income tax”).

G. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal, but was dismissed on December 18, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 13, Eul evidence 1 (including number in each documentary evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant house operated and Na-dong house was built in separate Dongs, but each registration of preservation of ownership was completed at the same time as the main building and the separate building on the same land. It is a space provided to children and relatives, and there was no possibility of independent disposal of each house, and it is one house when considering that each house was not a separate building with independence in structure or form, but a single residential unit. In addition, the instant disposition of imposition of additional tax is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) The part requesting revocation of resident tax disposition

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to seek revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax and additional OOO00 won. The defendant of an appeal lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of income tax to be imposed shall be the head of a Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and the lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax against the head of a tax office shall be filed against the non-qualified person (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du1459, Feb. 25, 2005)

(2) Part on the claim to revoke the disposition of transfer income tax of this case

(A) The key issue of the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax of this case is whether the instant operation and Nadong Housing can be seen as one house as a whole by social norms, which are separate buildings constructed on the land of this case with the same lot number.

(B) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the above facts, i.e., ① the registration of the instant house operated and bB is individually made, and the Plaintiff and bB have the authority to manage and dispose of the instant house by leasing, selling, etc. separately from their own house (it does not seem that the Plaintiff asserted that it is impossible to separately sell and operate bareboat house). ② The structure of both buildings is physically divided into health zone, operation and bareboat house, and the entrance is different from each other, and there is no specific circumstance to view that the operation and bareboat house were not separated independently from their own house (it is not difficult to separately install the septic tank, and it does not interfere with the physical separation possibility and independent disposal possibility of both buildings; ③ the apartment house and bareboat house are all of the houses used for the purpose of several houses, and are not directly used for the purpose of constructing and constructing the instant house (it is difficult to see that the first house and bareboat house were directly used for the purpose of constructing and constructing the instant house for the purpose of use by the Plaintiff 1).

(C) In addition, the Plaintiff seems to have asserted that the imposition of additional tax is unlawful since he reported and paid the transfer income tax of this case after hearing the opinions of the tax accountant. However, such circumstance alone alone does not make it unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to fulfill the duty to pay tax, or there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is an negligence of neglecting the duty to pay tax. Therefore, the above assertion is

(D) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking revocation of the instant disposition of capital gains tax is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing transfer income tax of this case is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.