One house for one household

In case where a person who falls under the requirements of one house for one household succeeds another house, and transfers the house by succession, and at the same time acquires a new house for the purpose of moving the house, and thereafter transfers the previous apartment within the prescribed period which is normally recognized as one house for one household, the transfer of such apartment house shall fall under the transfer of one house for

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Whether a person who has come to meet the requirements for one house for one household under the Income Tax Act by acquiring an apartment house for a fixed period of time succeeds to another house, transfers the inherited house, and at the same time transfers the previous apartment within the fixed period after acquiring a new house for the purpose of moving the residence.

In case where a person who has come to meet the requirements for one house for one household under the Income Tax Act by acquiring an apartment house and reside in it for a prescribed period, succeeds another house, transfers the inherited house, and at the same time transfers the previous apartment house within the prescribed period recognized as one house for one household, after acquiring a new house for the purpose of moving the residence, the transfer of the apartment house is the transfer of one house for one household under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act and is not subject to the transfer income tax.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 15 (1) and (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509 of Aug. 25, 1988), Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of Aug. 25, 1988)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Nu9817 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1331) and Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1298 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 763)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 9,172,940 against the Plaintiff as of September 11, 1993 and KRW 1,834,580 against the Plaintiff as of September 11, 1993 is revoked. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

1. Details of the instant taxation disposition

갑 제1 내지 5호증, 제11, 12호증, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재내용에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 및 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ 양지상 ㅇㅇ아파트 ㅇ동 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ호 104.01㎡ (이하 이 사건 아파트라 한다)를 1985. 3. 8. 취득(그 등기원인인 매매일자는 같은 달 6.)하여 1985. 3. 13.경부터 1986. 10. 30.경까지 거주하다가 1989. 2. 10. 소외 이ㅇ수에게 양도한 사실, 이에 피고는 원고가 위 아파트 취득 후 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 21의 203 소재 주택(이하 이 사건 상속주택이라 한다)을 1987. 1. 20. 상속하여 1987. 12. 8. 소외 김ㅇ동에게 양도하였고 그 양도이전인 1987. 12. 3. 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇ의 16 소재 주택(이하 이 사건 신주택이라 한다)을 취득한 것으로 보고 이 사건 아파트의 양도는 소득세법 제5조 제6호 (자)목 소정의 1세대 1주택의 양도요건에 해당하지 않는다 하여 1993. 9. 16. 원고에게 주문 기재의 양도소득세 등을 부과고지하는 처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 반증이 없다.

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant taxation disposition is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserted, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant new house for the purpose of moving the residence after transferring the instant inherited house, and transferred the instant apartment within the period stipulated by the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which was amended on August 25, 1988, within the period stipulated for the transitional provision on the first house for one household under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the instant apartment transfer should be exempted from taxation on the ground that the instant apartment transfer constitutes the requirement for transferring the house for one household under Article

B. Relevant statutes

According to Article 1 (1) through (3) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 12509 of August 25, 198), the Presidential Decree amended on the above date shall enter into force from the date of its promulgation, and this Decree shall apply from the date of first transfer after its enforcement: Provided, That where a household having one house for one household under the provisions of the main sentence of Article 15 (1) and subparagraph 2 of the same Article at the time of its enforcement transfers the house within 6 months from the enforcement date of the former Rules, the transfer shall be deemed to be a transfer under the provisions of subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Act, and where the house is acquired within 16 years from the enforcement date of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (the previous Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act No. 1760 of August 25, 198), Article 1 through (3) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (the previous Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Promotion Act) shall also apply from the date of the previous house under the Housing Construction Promotion Act within 2 years (the last 16 years).

Therefore, although the transfer date of the apartment of this case is after the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule, the transfer date of the apartment of this case shall be determined according to the previous laws and regulations before the amendment in accordance with Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Act, although the transfer is after the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule.

Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act provides that no capital gains tax shall be imposed on income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (this part before or after the amendment by Act No. 4019, Dec. 26, 198, or its contents; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the main sentence of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 198) provides that one house for one household shall be purchased at the same address or place of residence and one year or longer if the resident and his spouse acquire the house at the same time under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act by transfer of the house within the same time as the date on which the house is transferred, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that no capital gains tax shall be imposed on the transfer of the house within the period of two years or more if the person falling under the provisions of paragraph (1) acquires the house by inheritance.

In full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10 of evidence Nos. 1 to 4 of this case, witness -ok and witness -jin's testimony, the plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case from March 8, 1985 to October 30, 1986, and sold it to the non-party - on January 5, 1989, and transferred it by completing the registration of ownership transfer on February 10 of the same year to the non-party 10 of this year, and the plaintiff's family purchased the house of this case to the non-party 10 of this case's new house of this case on October 30, 198 (the plaintiff's family members were to live in the apartment of this case until October 30, 1986 and received the house of this case as the director living together with his parents on October 10, 1987 and sold the house of this case to the non-party 10 of this case's new house of this case after -10 of inheritance.

D. Determination

앞서 본 관계 법령에 위 인정사실을 비추어 보면, 원고는 이 사건 상속주택을 양도함(위 시행령 제15조 제6항에 의하면 제1항의 규정에서 정하는 1세대 1주택의 요건에 해당하는 사람이 그 상속에 의하여 주택을 취득하는 경우 먼저 양도하는 주택을 1세대 1주택으로 본다고 규정하고 있고 원고는 그 상속당시 이 사건 아파트가 1세대 1주택의 요건에 해당하였으므로 위 상속주택의 양도는 1세대 1주택의 양도로 간주된다)과 동시에 주거이전을 목적으로 이 사건 신주택을 취득하였고(피고는 위에서 본 소득세법시행규칙 제6조 제1항에서 정하는 주거이전을 목적으로 그 주택을 양도하기 전에 다른 주택을 취득하여 이전한 경우 의 의미가 마치 종전의 주택에 양도시까지 계속 거주 하다가 그 거주를 이전하는 경우에만 한정되는 것으로 해석함이 옳고 따라서 원고의 경우에는 이 사건 아파트의 양도 이전에 이미 ㅇㅇ동의 이 사건 상속주택으로 주거를 옮겼으므로 위 주거이전을 목적으로 의 요건에 해당하지 아니한다는 취지로 주장하나 위 조항의 문맥상 새로 취득하는 주택의 취득이 주거이전을 목적으로 하는 것은 필요하다고 해석되지만 종전의 주택에 양도시까지 계속 거주 하다가 그 거주를 이전하여야 한다는 의미로 해석할 수는 없다고 할 것이므로 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다) 그와 같은 신주택취득이후에 이미 종전의 법령에 의하여 1세대 1주택의 요건에 해당된 이 사건 아파트를 위에서 본 개정법규의 각 부칙에서 정한 소정의 기간(1989. 2. 25.) 내인 1989. 2. 10.에 양도하였으므로 이 사건 아파트의 양도는 소득세법 제5조 제6호 (자)목 소정의 1세대 1주택의 양도요건에 해당하여 원고의 이 사건 아파트의 양도로 인하여 발생한 소득에 대하여는 소득세를 부과할 수 없다 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is illegal, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.