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

A. With respect to the building of 00-31 large 164.8 square meters and its 2nd floor (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”), the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 of that 1/2 of that 100 from Gamba on October 22, 2003, and acquired the remainder of 1/2 of that 1/2 of that 1/2 of that 10 due to the donation from the father (the father) BB on March 9, 2006.

B. From December 8, 2003, the Plaintiff resided in the instant house and moved to 000 won from Y apartment 000-1 000,000 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). On April 4, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to west line. The Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment to west line on September 18, 2009.

C. The Defendant, on March 9, 2006, resided in the Republic of Korea from March 9, 2006 to April 3, 2007 with respect to 1/2 shares acquired by the Plaintiff from BB among the instant housing, and did not meet the residency requirements for one house non-taxation requirement for one household. On November 24, 2010, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 4, 2011, but was dismissed on April 29, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares of the instant housing from ParkA, the Plaintiff shared the said housing with NaB. Therefore, in determining whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for non-taxation for one household, it should be aggregated up to the period of possession and residence of B.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for residence for more than two years, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant apartment for the purpose of medical treatment and nursing of the disease because it was difficult for the wife KimCC to care for her as well as to raise her children due to mental illness such as depression. The transfer of the instant apartment for more than one year constitutes a transfer of a house in which she resided for more than one year and for other unavoidable reasons, and thus, it is subject to exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 154(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

In the case of the instant house, in principle, one household comprised of members, such as residents, their spouse, and children, should have the relevant house for more than three years, and reside in the said house for more than two years during the retention period. If BB added the purport of the entire pleading in the statement in No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2, and it is not recognized that it constitutes the same household as the Plaintiff during the retention period. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

On the other hand, Article 89 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 154 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that where a house in which one year or more has resided is transferred for medical treatment of a disease or other unavoidable reasons, it shall not be subject to restrictions on the period of possession and the period of residence in determining the requirements of non-taxation for one household. Thus, only where a house is transferred by relocating a house due to inevitable reasons, such as medical treatment of a disease, etc., it shall be deemed as one house for one household without being subject to restrictions on the above period, and the transfer income tax shall not be imposed on the house, and the meaning of the house

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion merely transferred the residence due to inevitable reasons to treat the wife’s disease, and thus, there is no room for applying the provision on the special case of non-taxation for one household under the above Enforcement Decree.

Even if the Plaintiff alleged that he transferred the instant house for the purpose of treating her wife’s disease, Article 71(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that “the treatment or recuperation of a disease requires treatment or recuperation for more than one year” as to “the treatment or recuperation for more than one year” under Article 154(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. According to the evidence No. 5 and No. 7, the Plaintiff’s wife KimCC transferred the instant house from March 14, 2007 to July 31, 2007 due to symptoms such as “the response to other serious stress”, etc., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff transferred the instant house from the time of transfer of the instant house to September 2009 to the time of transfer of the instant house. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff transferred the instant medical treatment or recuperation for more than one year after KimCC’s treatment or its content.

(3) Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have transferred the instant house due to illness treatment or any other inevitable reason, the Defendant’s disposition that took place under the same premise excluded the application of non-taxation requirements for one household from the application of one house.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.