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

"A. On February 22, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired and owned OOO apartment 0000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") of Seocho-gu Seoul OOOOO apartment 000 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") and transferred 000 won to 1 other than RedE on January 30, 2011 (hereinafter "the transfer of this case"). "B. The GangwonF, the Plaintiff's wife, was owned at the time of the transfer of this case on May 29, 2008 by acquiring 1/7 of the Yongsan-gu Seoul OOOOOdong 000 single house (hereinafter "the housing of this case"). The Plaintiff reported the scheduled transfer income tax to the Defendant on May 31, 201, on the premise that it is an independent household whose resident registration place is different from the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer of this case, and calculated the tax amount to be paid in excess of 90 million won by calculating the transfer margin of 1 house for 100 million won.

D. On February 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was the Plaintiff on February 9, 2012; and (b) was the person who left the original domicile or residence for work convenience; and (c) was the person who left the residence for work convenience; and (d) the real estate share in the instant housing owned by the Gangwon F in accordance with Article 154-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act should be considered as one house; (b) the Plaintiff determined and notified the Yangdose tax amount of KRW 000,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for non-taxation for one household.

E. On April 20, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 20, 2012, and was dismissed on June 18, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The purport of the entire arguments in each of the non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 16, 17, 1, and 2

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. On March 30, 201, the date of the transfer of the apartment house in this case, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife and the KFF, who worked as elementary school teachers at the time of the transfer of the apartment house in this case, maintained and managed the income above the minimum cost of living as stipulated in the National Basic Living Security Act and maintained and managed the housing share in this case, and thus, they have to be regarded as one independent household in accordance with Article 154(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Acquisition Tax Act. Accordingly, the apartment house in this case constitutes one house subject to non-taxation under Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act.

B. Article 154-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "If several persons jointly own one house, each co-owner shall be deemed to own the house when calculating the number of houses except as otherwise provided in this Decree, regardless of the size of each co-owner's share, it is deemed that the co-owned house has one house equally, regardless of the size of each co-owner's share, and it is not directly provided for in the tax rate, but directly affects the application of the tax rate, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, it is contrary to the tax legal principle, and it is against the principle of excessive prohibition and infringes on the right to pursue happiness.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The GangseoF, a parent of the Plaintiff couple, was born on March 10, 1985, and was unmarried 26 years of age at the time of the transfer of the instant case. The GangseoF was in office as a teacher at an OO school located in Songpa-gu Seoul OOO, Seoul, from September 1, 2007 to the time of the transfer of the instant case.

(2) From the resident registration address of the GangnamF, on October 5, 1996, the apartment of this case was transferred with the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, the parent’s parent, and on January 28, 201, his mother was changed to 0000, Songpa-gu Seoul O apartment, the domicile of which together with his family members. From March 201, 201, the Gangwon FF was commuting to his domicile near the Seoul TPP Elementary School.

(3) On January 21, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant apartment and received full payment on March 30, 201.

(4) After the transfer of the instant case, the Plaintiff purchased OO apartment 00000 in Songpa-gu Seoul, and the Plaintiff’s registered domicile was changed on April 1, 201, while the Plaintiff’s registered domicile was changed on March 23, 201 to the Plaintiff’s new domicile on March 23, 201.

(5) On July 19, 201, the KF transferred the resident registration to the said new domicile, and transferred and registered it to a household separate from the Plaintiff’s husband and wife and the KH.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap 2 through 4, Eul 9 through 12, Eul 2, and the purpose of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) According to Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 154(1) and (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one household in one house for one household subject to non-taxation of the transfer income tax shall be composed of the resident and his spouse together with the family members who make their living at the same address or same place of residence.

The family refers to the household, and the family refers to the lineal ascendants and descendants (the spouse) and siblings of the resident and his spouse, and the person who temporarily left the original domicile or residence for the purpose of attending school, medical treatment, work or business in the household is included in the family. However, according to each of the above provisions and Article 154 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in order to view the non-spouse as an independent household, the income of the non-spouse, such as the lineal descendants of the resident, etc., is at least the minimum cost of living under the provisions of Article 2 (6) of the National Basic Living Security Act, and is at least the minimum cost of living under the provisions of Article 2 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and their lineal descendants, etc., should be able to maintain an independent living and have a different livelihood with the resident.In addition, non-taxation is generally excluded from the taxable subject of taxation from the need of tax policy, and is related to the exception and special facts of the taxpayer

(B) Therefore, we examine whether the GangwonF maintains an independent household separately from the Plaintiff at the time of the instant transfer.

According to the above facts, the Gangnam may be deemed to have the ability to maintain independent living with the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer. However, the transfer date of the apartment house in this case is the date of settlement of the price, and the date of the conclusion of the sale contract is January 21, 201, and the purchase and sale contract is the same as the Plaintiff’s resident registration and the actual domicile with the Plaintiff’s parent at the time of the purchase and sale contract. Since the Plaintiff’s domicile was changed on July 19, 201, and the Plaintiff’s domicile was transferred to the Plaintiff’s parent’s domicile on July 19, 201, and it was difficult to recognize the transfer of the housing in this case’s residence with the Plaintiff’s income at the time of the transfer, and it was not easy to recognize the transfer of the housing in this case’s residence with the Plaintiff’s income at the time of the transfer of the housing in this case’s residence, and it was not easy to recognize that the transfer of the housing in this case’s residence between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother and the Plaintiff’s income from the transfer of the housing in this case’s residence.

(2) On the second argument

In this paper, (1) non-taxation of capital gains tax on the income accrued from the transfer of one house for one household is a provision establishing non-taxation special cases in accordance with the policy purpose of guaranteeing the stability of the residential life of the people and the freedom of residence and relocation on the premise of establishing the obligation to pay capital gains tax, and (2) in enacting the special provisions on non-taxation, a wide range of legislative discretion is granted to the legislators according to the legislative purpose, policy, and technical judgment. (3) In the Income Tax Act, one house for one household is defined as one of the reasons for non-taxation, and the specific scope is delegated to the Enforcement Decree, and the provisions of Articles 154 and 154-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act that specify the exceptional non-taxation requirements are not contrary to the delegation purpose of the mother law or do not seem to have exceeded the delegation scope of the delegation purpose of the parent law, and if several persons share the house, it cannot be deemed that the owner of the house or the owner of the house violates the principle of no taxation without the law.

(3) Sub-decisions

After all, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the premise that the apartment of this case does not correspond to one house for one household subject to non-taxation under Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act at the time of transfer.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit.