1. On August 10, 200, the court below accepted the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and found that the plaintiff married with AA which held two houses on August 10, 2006, while he acquired and held 00 Do 00 Do 00 Do 00 Do 00 Ga apartment xx x x x x (hereinafter "the house of this case"). ② The plaintiff transferred the house of this case on October 20, 2006; ② The plaintiff should transfer the house of this case on December 31, 2006; the house of this case (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) at 60% of the mid-term tax rate for transfer of "one house or more" as stipulated in Article 104 (1) 2-3 of the former Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "one of three houses for household and one of three houses") and the defendant should not apply the above disposition of this case to the defendant.

Then, the lower court determined that the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that, unlike Article 155(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009) which provides that, unlike Article 155(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009), the requirement for non-taxation or reduction under the principle of no taxation without a reasonable ground is not to be expanded or analogically interpreted without any such preferential provision, and on the ground that there was no such preferential provision in the statutes, it cannot be deemed that the transfer of the instant house violates the constitutional right to pursue happiness, freedom of marriage, principle of equality, and principle of proportionality.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

① Article 104(1)2-3 of the former Income Tax Act is a provision that imposes heavy taxation on capital gains tax in order to restrain ownership of housing for speculative purposes to stabilize housing price and stabilize residential life. In the event of three or more housing holders due to marriage, ownership of housing for speculative purposes is difficult to be deemed as ownership of housing for speculative purposes; ② in the event of three or more housing holders due to marriage, transfer income tax shall not be immediately exempted or reduced, and in principle, it shall not be deemed as preferential because general tax rate shall apply, unless it falls under the requirements for non-taxation or reduction and exemption. ③ In this case, the Plaintiff transferred the housing in this case to three houses for one household by marriage with the owner of two houses and two months only. As such, applying the heavy taxation rate for one household to three houses for one household to which the Plaintiff becomes three houses temporarily due to marriage violates the freedom of marriage guaranteed under the Constitution, and thus, it is difficult to grant permission under the principle of statutory interpretation of the Income Tax Act by taking into account the fact that it is difficult to apply to the transfer of housing within three years of marriage under Article 136(1) of the Enforcement Decree.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that the instant disposition was lawful by deeming the transfer of the instant housing to be subject to the heavy tax rate of three houses for one household. This would be erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of heavy tax rate of three houses for one household in cases where three or more houses are held by one household due to marriage.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.