2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 86,097,530 of each transfer income tax against the Plaintiffs on September 9, 2008 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

This Court's explanation about this case is the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the change of this section from among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in change;

Article 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied to the calculation of the special period of this case, since the last day of the period and the time limit cannot be seen as the same meaning, Article 161 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 8720 of Dec. 21, 2007) applied to the calculation of the period is governed by Article 4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Article 161 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 8720 of Dec. 21, 2007) provides that when the last day of the period falls on a legal holiday, the period shall expire as the next day, and the holidays shall not

However, according to Article 155 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720 of Feb. 29, 2008), where one household which owns one house temporarily becomes two houses, the former house shall be transferred within one year from the date of acquisition of the new house in order to be subject to the non-taxation of one house for one household. Article 162 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that where a registration of transfer is made before the settlement of the price, the date of receipt of registration recorded in the register shall be regarded as the date of transfer for the calculation of gains on transfer of assets. Thus, where the last day of the period from the date of acquisition of a new house falls on a non-regular one, the last day of the period shall be deemed to fall under the transfer of the previous house within one year from the date of acquisition of the new house.

If we do not see as above, the transferor of a house should apply for the registration of the previous house until the Friday day preceding the end of the period. However, the grace period of one year guaranteed by the law for the non-taxation requirement of one house for one household results in de facto reduction due to the reason that the registration tax is received and the registration receipt is on Saturday, which is the day after the new house acquisition date, is more unfavorable than that of the registration receipt date of the new house to be included in the grace period on July 1, 2005, while Article 161 of the Civil Code on the legal holiday and the expiration point of the period came into force on December 21, 2007, if the last day of the period falls on Saturday or a legal holiday, the period will expire on the following day, and if it comes to the expiration of the period and the amendment of the related law, it would be unreasonable for an individual to bear the disadvantage entirely due to the legislative expenses of this case and its legislative expenses.

Therefore, in the case of this case, since the date on which the plaintiffs acquired a new house falls on December 15, 2007, a holiday day from the date on which the plaintiffs acquired a new house, and as long as the ownership transfer registration of the house of this case was transferred on December 17, 2007, the next Saturday, the transfer of the plaintiffs' house of this case is made within the special period of this case, and thus the transfer income tax shall not be imposed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is unfair in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the disposition of this case.