[Edaily Reporter Choi Jeong-hee ] In November 2025, Mr. Kim received a tax bill demanding that he pay five years’ worth of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax in a single lump sum. The bill required him to recalculate and pay the tax for the period from 2021 to 2025.

Mr. Kim owned an old house in Hanam, Gyeonggi Province, which he had received as a gift in 2007, and a house in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which he had purchased in 2009 and had been renting out ever since. In addition, he held a 42.5% stake in a house in Gangnam-gu that he had inherited in May 2024.

The tax office that issued the comprehensive real estate tax notice focused on the house in Seongdong-gu. Mr. Kim had registered the Seongdong-gu property as a rental business with the Gangnam District Office in 2012 and, starting in 2013, had claimed the rental housing exclusion from the comprehensive real estate tax calculation (properties registered as rental housing are excluded from the tax calculation). By 2020, when the eight-year mandatory rental period ended, his registration as a rental business operator had been revoked. The tax office targeted Mr. Kim because he continued to claim the exclusion from the comprehensive real estate tax calculation even after his registration had been revoked. Including his homes in Hanam, Seongdong-gu, and Gangnam-gu, the comprehensive real estate tax Mr. Kim owed as a multi-homeowner was exorbitant.

However, it was the dilapidated house in Hanam that prompted Mr. Kim to challenge the tax office. “You’re telling me I have to pay the comprehensive real estate holding tax on a house that’s practically a ruin?” That was Mr. Kim’s question. He hoped that if the Hanam house were excluded from the comprehensive real estate holding tax, the amount of tax he had to pay would be reduced somewhat.

“The old house in Hanam—I don’t live there. No, I can’t live there.”

The old house in Hanam owned by Mr. Kim was built in 1950. According to the property registry, it consisted of a single-story wooden house with a thatched roof and a single-story cement-block house with a slate roof, totaling 70 square meters (㎡). Mr. Kim claimed that the roof and walls of the dilapidated wooden and cement-block structure had collapsed, and the bathroom, windows, and window frames were severely damaged, making it “uninhabitable.”

Mr. Kim neither lived in this house nor rented it out. He claimed that since receiving it as a gift in 2007, there had been absolutely no record of electricity or water usage, and that no meters had ever been installed.

Mr. Kim stated, “This house was constructed with an asbestos slate roof—a Class 1 carcinogen—making it a hazardous structure unfit for residential use,” adding, “The use of asbestos-containing materials has been completely banned since 2009, and local governments actively recommend the demolition of such hazardous structures.”

To prove just how uninhabitable the old house in Hanam is, Mr. Kim even commissioned a specialized firm to conduct a detailed safety inspection. The results of the detailed safety inspection conducted this past February showed that the Hanam house received an overall “E” grade—classified as “unsatisfactory.” According to the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Safety and Maintenance of Facilities, a house receiving an “E” grade is the lowest rating, meaning its use must be prohibited immediately, and it must either be reinforced or rebuilt. Then, in April, Mr. Kim had the house demolished entirely. It was also removed from the building registry.

Mr. Kim’s argument seemed relatively clear.

“If that house could have been repaired and used, I would have rented it out. The cost of repairs was excessive compared to the cost of rebuilding. It was practically just a vacant lot. And yet, they’re asking me to pay the comprehensive real estate tax on a house like this?”

All this time, he had been paying his property taxes diligently...

The tax office visited Mr. Kim’s house in Hanam in person. From what the tax office observed, the exterior walls and pillars were constructed of concrete, and the house did not appear to be on the verge of collapse to the point of being uninhabitable. Although the front door was blocked, the windows were deemed to be in good condition. Contrary to Mr. Kim’s claim, the house in Hanam did not appear to have a roof or walls that were severely collapsed or tilted.

The tax office argued that, under the Building Act, a “derelict house” refers to a structure where the walls have crumbled and the roof has collapsed to the point that it can no longer be considered a building; it does not include cases where the house’s functionality can be restored through interior renovations alone.

Since the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax is assessed based on the condition of the property as of June 1 of each year—and Mr. Kim received an “E” grade on the safety inspection for the Hanam house in February of this year and demolished the house in April—the tax office determined that his obligation to pay the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax for the period from 2021 to 2025 was unrelated to these events.

Furthermore, the individual residential property value for the Hanam house has been publicly announced every year since 2005. Hanam City levied property tax on the house every year. The tax office also pointed out that Mr. Kim had never once raised an objection to paying the property tax. In response, Mr. Kim argued that since the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax and property tax are entirely different taxes with separate and independent tax bases, paying property tax does not necessarily mean he must also pay the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax.

It looks like it could be fixed up and lived in...

The Tax Tribunal examined photos of Mr. Kim’s old house in Hanam and ruled in favor of the tax office.

The Tribunal (Tax Appeal No. 2026-Seo-2459) determined that although the house had deteriorated due to prolonged disuse, the roof, windows, and concrete walls remained intact, and that it would be habitable if the damaged parts were repaired and water and electricity were connected. The Tribunal assessed that the property retained “potential functionality for residential use.”

The fact that Mr. Kim had paid property taxes for many years without raising any objections also influenced the Tribunal’s decision. Although Mr. Kim received an E-grade assessment stating that his Hanam home was too dilapidated to be inhabited and had it demolished, he was unable to have his comprehensive real estate holding tax for the past five years adjusted.

The tax office’s investigation into Mr. Kim’s comprehensive real estate holding tax began with his “canceled rental business registration.” Although his rental business registration had been canceled—meaning the property was no longer eligible for exclusion from the tax base—he continued to underpay the tax without accounting for this change, ultimately leading to his discovery. The dilapidated house in Hanam, which he demolished belatedly, could do nothing to alter the tax liability for the past five years.

※ This article reconstructs the sequence of events based on a decision by the Tax Tribunal. Since the real names of the individuals involved and some specific amounts were not disclosed in the Tribunal’s decision, the content is based solely on verified facts. However, certain elements—such as the individuals’ surnames and the terms used to address spouses—were arbitrarily assigned for readability, as these details were not specified in the actual decision.