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

A. On October 20, 1994, the Plaintiff and ASEAN and LeeB (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) jointly acquired from the Plaintiff on October 20, 1994, the Plaintiff and ASEAN (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs, etc.”) at 00-00 units of Yongsan-gu, U.S. (the Plaintiff’s shares: 3/7, EA, and EB shares: 2/7, respectively; hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”); and thereafter, the B acquired the general housing of 00 units of Yongsan-gu, U.S., P.,00 units of 00 units of 00 units of 00 (hereinafter referred to as “general housing”) and thisA acquired on November 22, 2003 at 00 units of O0-000 (hereinafter referred to as “O202 unit”).

B. After transferring the instant house on December 16, 2003, the Plaintiff et al. did not report the transfer income tax on the premise that the instant house constitutes a non-taxable house under Article 155 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same).

C. Accordingly, on March 1, 2010, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition of KRW 33,137,090 (the principal tax corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share + KRW 19,247,849 + KRW 1,92 + KRW 11,964,462 of the additional tax on the actual tax on the actual tax of failure to report + KRW 11,964,462 of the additional tax on the actual tax of failure to report (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons:

① The instant house is inherited by the Plaintiff from thisCC, who is the decedent, and constitutes inherited house, and accordingly, it shall be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article 155(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

2) In addition, even if the BB acquired the general housing on November 19, 2003, it did not acquire the general housing 1 because it did not pay the balance of the general housing 1 in the case of the transfer of the instant housing. Since thisA transferred the instant housing within one year from the date it acquired the general housing 2, it should be exempted from taxation because it constitutes two houses for one household temporarily.

③ In addition, it is unlawful to impose capital gains tax on the instant housing transferred before it was enforced from January 1, 2004, subject to the heavy tax rate (60%).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On March 13, 1992, thisCC, the Plaintiff’s spouse, entered into a sales contract with 121,572,00 won to sell the instant housing from △ High-speed Co., Ltd., and paid most of the sales price until March 18, 192.

(2) The plaintiff et al. died on December 12, 1993. On March 8, 1994, the two names of this case were changed from thisCC to the name of the plaintiff et al. (the plaintiff: 3/7, EA, and EB: 2/7) who is the heir, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff et al. on October 20, 1994.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 155 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "where one household (including a homeless household as of the commencement date of inheritance) who owns one house has acquired one house at the time of commencement of inheritance by inheritance, the inherited house shall be considered as one house for one household without limitation of the retention period and the period of residence, and the provisions of Article 154 (1) shall apply."

In this case, as to whether the housing of this case constitutes "house owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance" under Article 1155 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the above facts were examined. Since this case was not completed on December 12, 1993, the plaintiff, the decedent, at the time of commencement of the inheritance, did not inherit "house of this case" but only inherit "the right to acquire the house of this case" at the time of commencement of the inheritance. On the other hand, the interpretation of the tax law is not allowed to expand or analogicalize without any justifiable reason, and it is not allowed to interpret "the right to acquire the house of this case" under Article 25 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act without any special reason. In particular, it is not possible to interpret that the provision of reduction or exemption as "the preferential provision" is clearly interpreted as "the right to acquire the house of the decedent at the time of commencement of inheritance" under Article 25 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, since the housing of this case does not fall under the "house owned by the decedent at the time of commencement of the inheritance", the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit on different premise.

(2) As to the assertion that it is two houses for one household temporarily (the above argument)

According to the above facts, this case’s assertion is without merit, since this case’s B and this case’s 1 and 2, each of the Plaintiff’s 1 and 2 were owned by the same household, and this case’s 3 houses were transferred, so the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is not reasonable (the Plaintiff’s assertion that the remainder cannot be deemed to have been acquired since the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the ordinary house acquired by this B, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the remainder after the transfer of the instant house. In addition, if the transfer of ownership was made before the settlement of price, the time of acquisition is the date of acquisition, and this part of the Plaintiff’

(3) As to the assertion that the heavy taxation rate of three houses per household was applied

According to the above facts, the defendant applied the general tax rate in imposing transfer income tax on the plaintiff, and the heavy tax rate (60%) in transferring three houses by one household is not applied. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit on different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.