Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. OOO 000 O 000 0000 'the instant housing' (hereinafter referred to as "the instant housing") is a constructed rental housing constructed by the subordinate City Development Corporation under the Rental Housing Act.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Southern City Development Corporation on April 18, 2002, and entered into a lease agreement on February 17, 2005 with respect to the instant house for more than five years until March 30, 2010, while the Plaintiff acquired the ownership by obtaining the sale by means of lease conversion on January 30, 2009 and transferred the ownership to KRW 00 on March 30, 201.

C. On the transfer margin of the instant house, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the instant house falls under the non-taxation requirement for one house for one household under the Rental Housing Act as stipulated in Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax”); and (b) made a preliminary return on the said tax amount as zero won. However, the Defendant decided on the transfer income tax by deeming that the instant house does not meet the non-taxation requirement because the household member was residing but did not reside in, and (c) rendered a decision on the transfer income tax of 00 won on January 10, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, dismissed the objection on March 16, 201, and again filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on August 26, 2011.

E. The Plaintiff’s wife was registered as the same household as the Plaintiff until February 15, 2005, and the Plaintiff did not share the same resident registration with the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff transferred his domicile to the instant house, and ParkBB, the Plaintiff’s own consciousness, and ParkCC did not share the same resident registration with the Plaintiff after February 15, 2005. At the time of the transfer of the instant house, the Plaintiff, spouse, and self-support had only one house, the instant house.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including natural disaster) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Party’s assertion and key issues

The plaintiff: In applying the non-taxation of one house for one household under Article 154 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Article 154 (1) 1") by acquiring and transferring constructed rental housing under the Rental Housing Act, it is sufficient that the resident satisfies the requirements for the five-year residential period.

The defendant: The non-taxation requirement for the period of residence under the provision of subparagraph 1 must meet the requirements for the period of residence, i.e., all of the entire household members, i.e., the period of residence; Provided, that even if some of the household members are unable to reside in the relevant house temporarily due to inevitable reasons such as school attendance, the amount of disease, and the circumstances of work or business, if the remaining household members reside during the period of residence under the provision of subparagraph 1 in the provision of subparagraph 1. In this case, the disposition of this case is legitimate because the non-taxation requirement for the period of residence is not satisfied because the non-taxation requirement for the period of residence was not met because the non-resident and the other household members were not residing in the instant house for the same period and there are no unavoidable reasons. Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether the period of residence under

(b) Relevant statutes: To be listed in attached Form;

C. Determination

(1) Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act provides that "No capital gains tax shall be imposed on the income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree (definite omitted) and land appurtenant thereto (in the middle omission)," and Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "Article 89(1)3 of the Act shall be applied.

The term “one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means that the spouse and one spouse of a household who are bound to reside in the same address or same place of residence with the former 1st five years or more (if the former spouse are to reside in the Republic of Korea as of the date of transfer, referring to the former 1st five years or more), and the former 3rd cases are not subject to the restriction on the retention period and the period of residence. The provisions of the former 1st proviso to the Income Tax Act include that the former 1st 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1st 1st 1st 6th 6th 6. 6th 6th 6.

(2) Examining this case in light of the aforementioned legal interpretation, the Plaintiff resided in the instant house, which is a constructed rental house under the Rental Housing Act, for more than five years from February 17, 2005 to March 30, 2010, and on March 30, 2010, the date of transfer, the Plaintiff, wife, and consciousness only owned the instant house, as seen earlier. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not reside in the instant house together with his spouse or other members, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for the possession and residence of the first household, which is exempt from capital gains tax. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful and should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.