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

A. On December 11, 1992, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 884 square meters of ○○○○○-dong 1161-2 ○○○○-dong 103 Dong 701 (hereinafter “previous house”) and owned 1,39.19 square meters of ○○-si 884 square meters of ○○-dong 103 Dong 701 (hereinafter “previous house”) on December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 89.19 square meters of ○○-si ○○-si ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong 103 Dong 103 Dong 701, and obtained approval for use on that land on July 22, 2013.

B. Following the transfer of the previous house on July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff did not file a transfer income tax on the ground that the transfer of the previous house constitutes two houses for one household temporarily and falls under non-taxation. Accordingly, on July 16, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff on July 16, 2018, including “the extension of the house to be removed.” Since the acquisition date of the previous house is deemed December 27, 2010, the acquisition date of the removed house is deemed to be December 27, 2010, which is the acquisition date of the removed house, the transfer of the previous house made after three years elapsed (Amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act, Article 155(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26763, Dec. 28, 2015).

C. On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal. However, on April 18, 2019, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s request was issued.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As a special case of one house for one household, in cases where the old house is demolished and reconstructed, the period of the temporary two houses shall be calculated by aggregating the period of the removed house and that of the reconstructed newly-built house (excluding the total period of 27 months and that of the reconstruction site due to the removal), but the defendant calculated the total period from the date of acquisition of the destroyed house to the date of disposal of the previous house (from December 27, 2010 to July 10, 2015) as the period of possession. The instant disposition is unlawful and thus must be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret it without reasonable cause. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret that the provision is clearly preferential in terms of the requirements for exemption or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du18325, Apr. 29, 2010).

Meanwhile, the purport of Article 89(1)3 (a) of the Income Tax Act and Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which does not impose income tax on the income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household, is that the transfer of one house owned in Korea is the basis of citizen’s living. Thus, in certain cases where it can be deemed that the transfer of one house owned in Korea is not a transfer income, or temporarily resided or transferred while owning it for the purpose of speculation, by failing to impose income tax on the transfer income, thereby ensuring the freedom of citizen’s residence stability and residence transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du10465, Sept. 28, 200). The purport of Article 89(1)3 (b) of the Income Tax Act and Article 155(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is that where one household who owns one house in Korea temporarily becomes two houses by acquiring another house before transferring the house, the transfer income tax shall be imposed on the transfer of the previous house within 3 years from the date of acquisition of the house (see Supreme Court Decision 20097Du197, etc.

(2) In this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the above facts and arguments, namely, ① even if the Plaintiff removed the house and newly built a new house as a substitute for it, it cannot be deemed that it acquired a house separate from the removed house (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu10918, Jun. 9, 198; 98Du13508, Dec. 8, 1998). This does not have any reason to view the Plaintiff’s new house as different even if it was immediately removed without using or making profits from the removed house and then newly built a new house. ② According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, if the Plaintiff owns another house without using or newly built the house, it is difficult to view that the above special provisions were applied only to the transfer of the newly built house within three years from the date of its acquisition, and the above special provisions were applied only to the transfer of the newly built house within 15 years from the date of its acquisition to the date of its temporary removal and new construction.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the same premise is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.