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

A. On September 25, 1997, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty 1, but the agreement was married on January 11, 2008.

B. On May 21, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the Jongno-gu Seoul (No. 2 omitted), Jongno-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”), but transferred the real estate to Seoul Special Metropolitan City by consultation on September 8, 2008. However, the Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the ground that it constitutes one house non-taxation for one household in relation to the transfer of the instant real estate.

C. However, even after the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 divorced on January 11, 2008, the Defendant actually maintained a matrimonial relationship, and Nonparty 1 owned the apartment house of △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and thus, it constitutes the transfer of housing by the owner of three or more houses for one household. On December 3, 2013, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 178,763,750 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 22,60,680, additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 50,293,113, special tax for rural development, KRW 3,836,90,90 (including additional tax on negligent tax returns, KRW 22,680, and additional tax on negligent tax payment) for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff had completed the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 5, 11 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As the Plaintiff had been on duty in Busan, Nonparty 1’s depression was serious and the agreement was reached, and the divorce between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 is duly formed. Even if the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 were to have a disguised divorce under Article 154(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it is against the principle of strict interpretation to interpret that the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be the same household in cases where, even if there was no spouse, it is difficult to deem a divorce as a case where there was no spouse in the event of a divorce with the Plaintiff under Article 154(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, even if there was a statutory divorce, but it is difficult to view it as the same household, such as living together with the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was a single household at

(2) Even if the Plaintiff did not have one house for one household at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, if the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 owned seven bonds for long-term rental, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 owned the instant real estate and the instant △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired a substitute house due to divorce, Busan residence, etc., and there are special circumstances deemed temporary under social norms, the heavy tax rate should be excluded and the special deduction for long-term holding should be applied. Therefore, the part of the instant disposition

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination as to whether a household is one house owner

(1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. However, in a case where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through mutual interpretation between the Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be permitted to make a combined interpretation taking into account the legislative purport and purpose into account to the extent that does not undermine the legal stability and predictability pursued by the no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008). The purport of the provision that the income tax shall not be imposed on the income accrued from the transfer of one house to the public’s residential life is that the transfer of one house owned by one household constitutes a basis for the residence of the public, and thus, it shall be deemed that the transfer of one house owned by the public and the spouse’s temporary residence for the purpose of tax evasion and transfer of the residential life for the purpose of tax evasion and divorce between the residents and the spouse (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201201Du138, etc., supra).

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 4 내지 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 19, 24호증, 을 6, 8, 12, 14호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고와 소외 1은 2008. 1. 11. 협의이혼신고를 하면서 1998년생과 2004년생인 두 자녀의 친권자 및 행사자를 소외 1로 지정하였는데, 원고는 자신과 자녀들은 부산에서, 소외 1은 서울에서 거주하였다고 주장하나, 당시 초등학교와 유치원에 다니는 어린 자녀들을 소외 1이 돌보지 않고 직장을 다니던 원고가 있는 부산에 남겨두고는 안동에서 거주하는 원고의 모나 근처에 살던 누나가 돌보았다는 주장은 믿기 어렵고, 이혼 당시 친권자를 소외 1로 지정하였던 것과도 그 주장이 맞지 아니하며, 원고가 소장에서 소외 1이 원고의 급여로 경제생활을 하였다는 것에 대한 반박으로 소액이고 부정기적으로 받은 돈으로 초등학생, 유치원생 2명의 자녀와 소외 1이 생활하기에 불가능하다고 주장한 점에서 소외 1이 서울에서 생활하고 원고와 자녀들이 부산에서 생활하였다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 원고는 2008. 1. 3. 소외 1의 모 소외 2와 사이에 서울 성북구 (주소 3 생략) ▽▽▽동 ◎◎◎◎호 중 방 1칸에 관한 임대차계약을 체결하고 소외 1과 이혼신고 한 지 6일 만인 2008. 1. 17. 위 주소로 전입신고하고 확정일자를 받았는데, 원고는 재결합을 위하여 노력하는 것을 확실히 보여주기 위하여 임대차계약을 체결하고 전입신고를 하였다고 주장하나 이는 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점, ③ 원고는 소외 1의 우울증이 심각해져 협의이혼에 이르게 된 것이라고 주장하나 협의이혼 무렵 소외 1의 우울증이 심각하였다고 볼 자료가 없는 점, ④ 소외 1은 2006. 12. 28. ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 아파트에 대한 분양권을 취득하였으므로, 비록 위 아파트에 관한 보존등기는 협의이혼 이후인 2008. 5. 7. 마쳤으나 이미 이혼 당시에 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 아파트를 취득할 것이 예정되어 있었고, 또한 이 사건 부동산이 공익사업지역에 편입될 것이라는 것은 그 당시 알 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 원고는 소외 1이 서울에서 거주하면서 부산을 다녀가곤 하다가 재결합 필요성을 2008. 8.경 느끼고 이후 부산에 자주 왔다는 취지로 주장하나, 소외 1 명의의 신용카드 내역을 보면 서울에서 사용한 내역이 거의 없어 소외 1이 원고 주장대로 2008. 8. 이전에 서울에서 생활하였는지에 대해 강한 의심이 들고 오히려 원고 명의 현금영수증 발행 내역 등을 고려할 때 소외 1이 계속 부산에서 거주한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 원고는 심판청구할 당시 소외 1이 원고 모르게 임대주택을 매수하였다고 주장하였으나, 임대주택을 매수할 때 원고가 일부 매수대금을 지급한 내역이 있을 뿐만 아니라 이혼한 이후 원고와 소외 1은 실제 이혼한 부부와 다르게 다수의 금융거래를 한 점, ⑦ 원고와 소외 1은 2009. 1. 2. 다시 혼인신고를 마친 점 등을 종합하면, 원고와 소외 1은 양도소득세를 면탈하기 위해 위장이혼을 하고 이혼한 후에도 실제로 혼인관계를 지속하고 있었던 것으로 보이므로, 원고와 소외 1은 비록 이혼을 하였으나 1세대로 해석하여야 할 것이다.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Determination on whether to exclude heavy tariff rates

Article 167-3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 210682 of Oct. 7, 2008) provides that the transfer of a house corresponding to three or more houses for one household shall not be deemed to fall under any of the above subparagraphs in the case of the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff argued that the loan of 7 or more houses in Busan is a long-term rental house, but all of Busan rental houses were acquired on or around June 2008 and leased for five or more years. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, without examining whether there are special circumstances that the ownership of ○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△△ was temporary in terms of social norms.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-ap