Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

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

A. The Plaintiff, acquired on April 25, 2001, transferred KRW 134,808,740,000,000 on August 17, 2006, 200, ○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-1, 301, 402 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to KRW 83,00,000,000,000,000, and paid KRW 134,808,740 on a voluntary basis as the actual transaction price around October 206.

B. On May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction against the Defendant for refund of KRW 100,597,920 paid in excess on the ground that the transfer of the instant apartment constitutes a non-taxation object for one household. However, on November 9, 2007, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff met the requirements for ownership for at least three years with respect to the transfer of the instant apartment, but failed to meet the requirements for residence for at least two years.

C. The plaintiff, on February 4, 2008, made a request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal on the same day.

6. 13. Receiving a ruling of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal;

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17751, Oct. 1, 202; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the instant case”) provides for the first residential requirements (not less than one year) other than the requirements for possession for not less than three years within the scope of one house for one household. Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18127, Nov. 20, 2003) strengthens residential requirements not less than two years. Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which applies at the time of the transfer of the instant apartment, also provides for more than three years in addition to the scope of one house for one household. (1) Since the Plaintiff had already owned the instant apartment house prior to the enforcement of the instant Enforcement Decree, the instant amendment of the Enforcement Decree, which violates the principle of non-taxation right by infringing on the Plaintiff’s right to live in the instant house before the enforcement date of the instant apartment.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion of violation of the principle of retroactive illegal prohibition

Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea only means that the relevant tax law cannot be applied to the completed facts prior to the entry into force of the relevant tax law, and it does not limit the application of new laws and regulations on the taxation requirements that occurred thereafter. In this case, even if the ownership of an apartment in this case is recognized as the ownership of the apartment in this case, as long as the taxation requirements of the transfer of the apartment in this case have not yet been completed, the amended laws and regulations shall be applied in the direction of strengthening the taxation requirements at the time of the completion of the taxation requirements, and this cannot be deemed as being contrary to the principle of non-payment of tax laws and regulations. Thus, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is

(2) Determination as to the assertion of infringement of the freedom of residence transfer and support

The purport of not imposing income tax on the income accrued from the transfer of one house for one household is that a house owned in Korea is the basis of a citizen's residential life. Thus, in certain cases where it can be deemed that the transfer of one house owned in Korea is not a temporary residence or transfer of one house for the purpose of acquiring capital gains tax or speculation, the transfer income tax is not imposed on the transfer income, thereby ensuring the stability of a citizen's residential life and the freedom of moving his residence. As such, Article 154 (1) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, as part of the real estate policy for the sound development of the national economy, provided that if a person who did not acquire real estate for speculative purposes by limiting speculative demand to a certain area, it is only a provision that forces a house owner, etc. to directly move his residence to a house for speculative purposes, and thus, it is exempt from capital gains tax in cases where the owner of one house for the purpose of speculation satisfies the requirements for the period of possession and residence, and if the owner only transfers the house to meet the burden of transfer income tax, it cannot be asserted to the Plaintiff's freedom of residence and reason.

(3) Determination on the assertion of violation of the principle of equality or the principle of trust protection

In the tax law, the provisions on taxation requirements and non-taxation or non-taxation or non-taxation requirements, which are exceptional provisions therefor, belong to the legislative discretion of legislators, so long as the provisions are not considerably unreasonable, in principle, the subject of non-taxation of capital gains tax is also a matter of legislative policy. Barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, even if a taxpayer trusted non-taxation, etc. under the previous provisions, it is merely merely a simple expectation, and it cannot be viewed as a substitute for the vested right, and therefore, should be protected. Thus, in case where the house is transferred by one year after the enforcement of Article 3 (1) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the instant case, which was first introduced the living requirements, by the date on which one year elapses from the enforcement date of the former provisions, notwithstanding the provisions on the amendment of Article 154 (1), it cannot be said that the transitional provisions violate the right to equality of the people who were the owner of one house per one household and do not meet the requirements for ownership three years from the enforcement date of the provisions, or violate the principle

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legal, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's senior secretary.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and it shall be judged the same as the order.