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

A. On August 10, 199, the Plaintiff purchased 34,577,00 won from the Sungnam-si Korea Housing Corporation ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment, 402, and 210 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and owned 34,57,000 won, and transferred 140,000 won on April 140, 2007.

B. The apartment of this case is a rental house located within the area designated and publicly notified as a planned area for housing site development under the main sentence of Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the plaintiff was transferred the right of lease from the previous lessee Cho Young-ok on February 13, 1997 and resided in the apartment of this case from February 19, 197, and thereafter purchased the apartment of this case on August 10, 1999, and thereafter, was the director of ○○-47, Seoul ○○-dong, ○○○-47 on May 1, 2000. (C) On the premise that on April 13, 2007, the plaintiff did not apply the special provisions on non-taxation to the transfer of the apartment of this case to the defendant, the plaintiff scheduled to return the calculated tax amount of 19,45,238 won under the above transfer to the transfer income tax for 207.

D. On June 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant by asserting that it is unreasonable that the Plaintiff should pay capital gains tax only for the reason that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for the residence period among the requirements for non-taxation on one house for one household. However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting correction on August 7, 2007.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On February 13, 1997, the Plaintiff succeeded to the right of lease to the apartment of this case, which is a leased apartment, from the former lessee, and resided in two years and six months, and converted for sale in lots on August 10, 1999, and thereafter, was residing more than eight months in the apartment of this case. In the case of the rental house, such as the apartment of this case, whether the period of residence is satisfied should be determined including not only the period during which the Plaintiff owned and resided but also the period of

(2) The Plaintiff has paid rent every month after the lease of the apartment of this case to the time of the lease, and also paid 30 million won in consideration of the premium for monthly rent and rent conversion at the time of succeeding the right to lease from the previous lessee. The above amount shall be included in the acquisition price of the apartment of this case.

(3) While residing in the instant apartment, the Plaintiff inevitably received an order to move from the employer to the place of business located in the Gunpo-si located in the Gunpo-si in Gwangju Metropolitan City, and became a director inevitably to move out and leave the place of business.

(4) The amendment of the law that requires a certain period of residence as a requirement for non-taxation for one house for one household was made in 2002, but the Plaintiff could not meet the above requirements because it had already been relocated in 2000 prior to the amendment of the law.

(5) The Plaintiff purchased a small apartment on a national housing scale is not for the purpose of market profit, but solely for the purpose of establishing a residential residence to be residing. The transfer margin is not for the reason that the Plaintiff would pay the transfer income tax as it was used in return of deposit money for the tenant and repayment of loan, etc. and there is little real income.

(6) A large number of small apartments in the area where the apartment of this case is located, so it was unreasonable to treat the apartment of this case as housing within another area, even though it did not actively engage in the transaction, it is unreasonable to treat the apartment of this case as housing within another area.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 95 (Transfer Income Amount)

Article 97 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses for Transfer Income Tax)

Article 89 (Acquisition Value of Assets)

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

C. Determination

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the fact of taxation requirements, the fact of non-taxation requirements, or the interpretation of tax laws should be strict, and the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation should not be allowed.

First of all, Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the scope of one house for one household pursuant to delegation of Article 89 (1) 3 of the same Act, provides that the period of possession of the relevant house shall be at least three years in the case of a house within a newly-urban area designated and publicly announced as a prearranged area for housing development, and that the period of residence during the period of possession shall be at least two years, and the tax law stipulating the scope of one house for one household shall stipulate that the period of residence during the period of possession shall be at least two years. Thus, the disposition of this case shall not be deemed unlawful merely because the plaintiff did not include the period of residence in the period of residence under the above provision, as a tenant, unless there is a separate provision for adding the period of stay as a tenant in the period of two years. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the claim of the above A. (2), since the rent that the Plaintiff paid as the lessee of the apartment of this case is deemed to be the cost required for acquiring the apartment of this case, even if following the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be deemed to be the cost required for acquiring the apartment of this case. In the case of the 30 million won that the Plaintiff paid to the previous lessor, there is no evidence to acknowledge the payment itself, and even if following the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to view it as the acquisition cost of the apartment of this case, since it is difficult to view it as the acquisition cost of the apartment of this case as the acquisition cost of the apartment of this case.

Then, the above A. Fidelity argument provides that the period of possession and the period of residence prescribed in the main sentence of Article 154(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall not be restricted in cases where a house is transferred due to unavoidable reasons, such as the situation of work, etc. However, the above proviso stipulates that the transferor of the house has been residing in the relevant house for not less than one year, and the above provision stipulates that the transferor of the house has resided in the relevant house for not less than one year. In comparison with the main sentence of Article 154(1)3 of the above provision, the above provision means that the owner of the apartment house in this case has resided in the relevant house for not less than one year. Even in the plaintiff's assertion, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has resided in the apartment house in this case as the owner of the apartment house in this case for eight months, and there is no other evidence

Next, as to the argument of the above A. (4), it was stipulated that the requirements of the first house for one household under the main sentence of Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 17751 of October 1, 2002 should be met for three or more years, and in the case of a house located in a subdivision city, etc. designated and publicly notified as a housing site development district by the amendment of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, a certain period of residence should be satisfied and added as the requirements were added to the above requirements. The fact that the plaintiff was a director of the apartment of this case on May 1, 200, the above amendment, as seen above. However, the above circumstance alone is that the above provision of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act should be applied to the transfer of the apartment of this case, or that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and therefore the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Next, with respect to the claim as above (A)(5), the health team, and such circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff are irrelevant to the assessment of the gender or tax amount of the taxation requirement under the tax laws and regulations, and such circumstances cannot be deemed to have any relation between such circumstances and the legality of the instant disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Finally, the main text of Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides that the person who has resided for a certain period in the case of a house located in the health zone, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and a neighboring new city, etc., is required to promote the stabilization of the housing market, is to ensure the stability of the housing market, and it is difficult to say that the increase rate of the housing price is lower than that of other areas because a small apartment is located in the area where the small apartment is located, and if the increase in the market price is relatively less than that of other areas, the amount of tax may be regarded as small under the same conditions. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that there is any error of law in the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in uniformly treating the houses with common interests in that it is located within the area designated and publicly notified as a planned area for housing development, and there is no evidence that the increase in the market price in the apartment house in the area where the apartment house in this case is located

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.