1. According to the records, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 sold 32.3m2 and 314.5m2 to the non-party 2 of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) housing 232m2 and 314.5m2 (hereinafter the real estate of this case) to the non-party 1, and it can be confirmed that the non-party 1 paid all the above real estate purchase price to the plaintiff. However, the non-party 1 did not recognize that the non-party 1 paid the above purchase price to the non-party 1 online through the financial institution until January 4, 1992, the non-party 1 did not bear the burden of proof as to the non-party 1's loan debt 45,000,000 and the non-party 1's transfer of the above real estate 9m20,000 as the total amount of the purchase price for the non-party 1's transfer of the above real estate and the non-party 1's transfer of the above real estate.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff purchased ○ apartment 1 and 607, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (No. 2 omitted), and paid the purchase price in full by January 6, 192. The time of transferring the real estate of this case is November 23, 1992. Since the time of acquiring the apartment of this case was January 6, 1992, since it is apparent that the time of acquiring the apartment of this case was six months after the plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case, and therefore, the above transfer of the real estate of this case does not constitute the transfer of the so-called one house for one household, which is subject to non-taxation of capital gains tax, and therefore, it is not justified in holding that the plaintiff's transfer of the real estate of this case constitutes Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of the real estate of this case should be exempted from taxation.

However, Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act provides that no income tax shall be imposed on the income accrued from the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and a certain area of land attached thereto. Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that one house for one household under Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Act shall be the same as that of a resident and his/her spouse who lives together with his/her family members at the same address or same place of residence for three or more years unless there are special circumstances. According to Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, if a household having one house has acquired another house for the purpose of transferring the house within one year (6 months in the case of apartment houses) from the date on which it acquired the previous house for the purpose of transferring the house, and thus, it is evident that the previous house for the purpose of transferring the house for 19 years after it acquired another house for the purpose of transferring it within 16 months (6 months in the case of apartment houses).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)