Article 155 (Special Cases concerning One House for One Household)

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

The following facts are recognized as either a dispute between the parties, or as a whole in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1 through 5.

A. On November 28, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned ○○○○ apartment, 1272 ○○○ apartment, 103 ○○○ apartment, 103 dong, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) and acquired ○○○ apartment, 1017 ○○ apartment, 46 dong 46 ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) under the name of the Plaintiff’s wife. On November 9, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired ○○ apartment, 100 dong 102 dong 102, 102 dong ○○○○ apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). On November 13, 2003, the instant apartment was reconstructed under the name of the Plaintiff’s wife and transferred the ownership transfer registration under the name of the instant apartment as of December 26, 2006.

B. On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a voluntary report and payment of capital gains tax of KRW 2,304,706 upon the transfer of the apartment in this case, and on June 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant by asserting that the transfer of the apartment in this case should be exempted from taxation as a temporary transfer of two houses for one household. However, on August 9, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the transfer of the apartment in this case does not constitute a temporary transfer of two houses for one household (hereinafter “

C. On November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal, but the National Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss it on January 23, 2008,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired apartment units subject to reconstruction of this case for the purpose of real residence such as the improvement of the educational environment and residential environment of children, not for speculation purpose. Since the time of acquiring apartment units subject to reconstruction of this case is merely the right to take occupancy due to reconstruction at the time of acquiring apartment units subject to reconstruction of this case and is not included in the number of houses, the time of acquiring apartment units of this case is the reconstruction completion rather than the acquisition date of apartment units subject to reconstruction of this case. Thus, the transfer of apartment units of this case within one year thereafter constitutes two houses for one household, and thus, it is unlawful for

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 155 (Special Cases concerning One House for One Household)

C. Determination

Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 155 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provide that where one household which owns one house in Korea has come to possess two houses temporarily by acquiring another house before transferring the house, if it transfers the previous house within one year from the date of acquiring another house, it shall be deemed to be one house for one household and no capital gains tax shall be imposed on it. In this case, with respect to the application of the special case of non-taxation of capital gains tax on two houses temporarily for one household, in this case, it is a question whether the time of acquiring the apartment of this case by the plaintiff is November 9, 202, the date of acquisition of the apartment of this case subject to reconstruction of this case, or is the date of completion of the reconstruction of this case.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act does not impose tax on the income accruing from the transfer of one house to one household, i.e., the following circumstances revealed in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and recognized facts, that the transfer of one house owned in Korea based on the citizen’s residential life does not belong to the transfer income tax if there are certain reasons to view that the transfer of the house is not a temporary residence or ownership for the purpose of speculation, income tax on the transfer income tax, thereby guaranteeing the citizen’s residential stability and the freedom of moving his residence. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act, Articles 154(1) and 155(1) and 155(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the temporary reconstruction of the apartment house which is not subject to taxation for the reconstruction period from 10 years to 2 years long-term reconstruction of the existing apartment house and its reconstruction period is not in conformity with the purport of the reconstruction of the apartment house which is not subject to taxation.