Even in the case of a building that has front of removal due to reconstruction under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, it can fall under the "housing" under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act.

In full view of the evidence in its holding, the court below acknowledged the fact that housing reconstruction project was promoted under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents with respect to the reconstruction apartment of this case among the possession of the apartment of this case and the reconstruction apartment of this case, and that the plaintiff later transferred the apartment of this case to other person on March 20, 2006, which was before the approval for the implementation of the housing reconstruction project or the approval for the management and disposal plan was made. Meanwhile, as the resolution of the reconstruction association was made on February 28, 2004 for the apartment complex including the reconstruction apartment of this case, the plaintiff moved out from the reconstruction apartment of this case as a whole around March 19, 205, including moving out of the reconstruction apartment of this case, and all facilities such as urban gas, water supply, electricity, etc. attached to the reconstruction apartment of this case were removed, and around the apartment complex, the plaintiff was under control of the entry of the general public.

In addition, the court below determined that the plaintiff did not own a house other than the apartment of this case at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case, on the ground that the rebuilding apartment of this case owned by the plaintiff at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case was in a situation where it was impossible to use the apartment of this case for a house for more than one year since the plaintiff occupied the apartment of this case and entered the preparation procedure for the removal of the building since it was impossible to use the apartment of this case for a house for a house any more than one year, regardless of the usage classification of the building injury, and it cannot be seen as a "house" under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, since it was actually used for a house for a residence regardless of the use classification of the building and the structure, function, or facilities of this case, which are in a situation suitable for a residence as the original residential purpose, and the residential function is maintained and managed as it is, at any time.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the purport of the non-taxation system of the transfer income tax on one house for one household, and the legislative purport and the legislative structure of the non-taxation provision of the transfer income tax on one house for one household even in cases where one household possesses an association member's relocation right acquired by the approval of the management and disposal plan of the house and the urban and rural area maintenance and improvement project, and transfers the house, it is reasonable to deem that the reconstruction apartment of this case, which appears to have been continuously holding the potential function as a residence, falls under the "house" under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax

On the other hand, the Supreme Court precedents cited by the court below as the ground for the above determination are not related to housing in the reconstruction process as in the case of this case, but rather based on the premise that the basic structure, facilities, and functions of the building are maintained in the future, and it is inappropriate to rely on this case.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the reconstruction house of this case does not correspond to the house under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act, and applied the non-taxation provision on the transfer of the apartment house of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on non-taxation on the non-taxation on the income tax on one house for one household, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal pointing this

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)