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

가. 원고는 1980. 12. 12. 서울시 종로구 OO동 0000 대 7㎡， 같은 동 000 대 248㎡ 양 지상 2층 주택(위 대지 및 주택을 합해 '이 사건 주택'이라 한다)을 취득했고， 2008. 6. 2. 서울시 은평구 OO동 000 OOOOOO아파트 000동 000호(이하 '이 사건 아파트') 입주권을 취득했다가 2008. 7. 15. 이 사건 주택을 000원에 양도한 것에 대하여，이 사건 아파트 입주권을 취득한 날(2008.6.2.)로부터 1년 이내인 2008. 7. 15. 이 사건 주택을 양도했다 하면서 일시적 1세대 2주택으로 보아 비과세에 해당 하되 고가주택에 대한 양도차익을 계산하고 장기보유특별공제를 적용하여 2008년 귀속 양도소득세 000원을 신고 ・ 납부했다.

B. At the time of the transfer of the instant house, the Defendant, on June 2, 2008, issued a notice to the Plaintiff on June 9, 201, that the Plaintiff’s wife owned 00 multi-household 00 multi-household 200 (hereinafter “multi-household 3”) and excluded special long-term possession deduction on the ground that it constitutes three houses for one household, and notified the Plaintiff that he would impose KRW 000 for capital gains tax for 2008 by applying heavy taxation rate of 60/10, and then issued a notice to the Plaintiff on June 9, 201 that he would impose capital gains tax for 2008.

C. On January 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the amount of capital gains tax by applying the transfer income tax rate to the transfer of the instant house in the case of two houses for one household under Article 104(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the Defendant subsequently decided to reduce the amount of capital gains tax to 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 10, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

“(1) The Plaintiff, on December 12, 1980, offered the instant multi-household house from around 2006 to move into an apartment house which is easy to reside after old age. The Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the instant house only on April 7, 2008, and entered into a contract to acquire the instant apartment house at KRW 00 for the purpose of living after old age on April 23, 2008. The date of the purchase of the instant apartment house was 00,000, which is a small house for the purpose of temporarily residing until September 20, 2010, and the Plaintiff did not receive any remainder of 10,000,000,000 for the remainder of 20,0000,000,000 won, for the purpose of purchasing the instant apartment house from old age on April 10, 2008 (the remainder of 20,000,000).

(2) If the transfer date of the instant house is considered to be July 15, 2008, the transfer income tax should be imposed on the housing of one household in the case of temporary three houses owned in the process of acquiring the substitute house for the purpose of migration, and temporary one household three houses for the purpose of acquisition of the substitute house for the purpose of migration, on the ground that there is no legal basis, and in this case, the special case of tax exemption for one house for one household under Article 155(1) of the former Enforcement

(b) Relevant statutes: To be listed in attached Form;

C. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

Therefore, it is clear that the transfer date of the instant housing is 0.5 to the effect that it is 0.5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and that it is 8.5 of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20931, Jul. 24, 2008; hereinafter the same) is 0.5 of the former Income Tax Act, and that it is 8.0 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and that it is 8.5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is 0.5 of the Housing Act, is 0.5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. It is clear that the transfer date of the instant housing is 0.5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and that it is 0 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, 20 of the Housing Act, 30 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and that the remaining payment date of the instant apartment housing is 80 days before the transfer date.

D. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

The above facts and arguments, i.e., the remaining payment date of the housing of this case 1 to 3rd generation, and the non-taxation provision was applied to the transfer of the housing of this case 1 to 2nd generation as of May 30, 2008, and the non-taxation provision was applied to the transfer of the housing of this case 1 to 2nd generation, and the plaintiff's wife's acquisition of the housing of this case 3rd generation as of July 15, 2008 1 to 2nd generation of the housing of this case 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 1 to 1st generation of the above 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 2nd generation of the above 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 4th generation of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as of 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 1 to 3rd generation of the housing of this case 2nd generation.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.