On February 11, 200, the Plaintiff acquired Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment No. 10, 803 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred the apartment at KRW 500,000,000 on May 2, 2014.

In filing a return of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff reported and paid to the Defendant on July 7, 2014, capital gains tax of KRW 4,122,779 on the ground that the said transfer constitutes one house for one household, which is a high-priced house under Articles 95(3) and 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”).

At the time of the transfer of this case, the Defendant: (a) held the Plaintiff’s spouse of Jeju-si D Building 103 Dong 311 (hereinafter “instant apartment house”); (b) deemed that the transfer of the instant apartment house does not constitute one house for one household; and (c) on April 1, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 198,159,750, capital gains tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 23, 2015, but was dismissed on May 2, 2016.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul’s 1, 2, and 2 (including Serial Nos. 1, 2, and 3), and whether the disposition of this case is legitimate as a whole, the key issue of the plaintiff’s defense as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate is separate sheet, and it does not constitute “house” under Article 89(1)3 (a) of the former Income Tax Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition that excluded the application of one house for one household is unlawful.

The relevant provisions 1) Article 104-3 (1) 6 of the former Income Tax Act, which was enforced at the time of the transfer of the apartment of this case, provides for a villa and its appurtenant land as one of the non-business land, and the details thereof are as follows: