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

A. On December 20, 2001, the Plaintiff newly constructed a multi-family house with two floors above the Gangnam-gu Seoul OOdong 000 to 330.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) and leased the instant house from around that time.

B. On April 5, 201, the Plaintiff sold the instant house to the PP Art Foundation, a foundation, for KRW 000, and three houses owned by the Plaintiff were included in the instant house. On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to the Defendant by applying the special long-term holding deduction under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act by applying the special long-term holding deduction under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income, and on December 2, 2011, filed a claim for correction that the instant house corresponds to a newly-built rental house under Article 97-2(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, claiming that the Plaintiff

C. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act, and thus, did not constitute a newly-built rental house under Article 97-2(1) of the Restriction on Special Cases of Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”), and on January 7, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under three houses for one household, and does not fall under the special deduction for long-term holding under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 00 for failure to report, and additional tax of KRW 00 for failure to pay) for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant rejection disposition and disposition, filed an objection on March 15, 2012, received a decision of dismissal, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 1, 2012, but received a decision of dismissal on August 3, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1, 10, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the instant housing is divided into 12 units so that 12 households can reside independently, and the Plaintiff is engaged in the lease business in good faith after filing a registration of the rental business operator of the instant housing with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff constitutes a person eligible for special deduction for long-term possession as a result of the fact that the Plaintiff is not a three-household owner under Article 97-2(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the instant refusal disposition

Article 97-2 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "where a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree transfers a national housing falling under any of the following subparagraphs after renting it for not less than five years, capital gains tax shall be exempted," and "national housing falling under any of the following subparagraphs" subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides "construction rental housing under the Rental Housing Act", and "construction rental housing" under Article 2 and Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act, it means housing constructed for rent by a rental business operator registered with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu to operate a housing rental business by the Governor of the Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment by submitting an application for tax reduction and exemption to the rental business operator under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act (Article 97-2 (2) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 97 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act and Article 97 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, the plaintiff may not be registered with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of the rental business operator.

2) As to the instant disposition

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act recognizes the special deduction for long-term holding of the land or building the holding period of which is three or more years, and excludes the special deduction for long-term holding of the house as prescribed by Article 104 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act, and the house as prescribed by Article 104 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act means three or more houses for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the house falling under three or more houses for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means a house owned by one household having three or more houses in Korea (Article 167-3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), and the house owned by the resident who registered the business under Article 168 of the Income Tax Act and the rental business under Article 6 of the Rental Housing Act as a rental house and the house leased for five or more years under the provisions of Article 97-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not fall under the Plaintiff’s taxation of the house at the time of the transfer of the house in this case 3rd house.

3. Conclusion

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