Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, and the criteria for determining whether a "one house for one household" is "one house" under Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In a case where a transferor of a house owns another building, whether the other building is a house under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by the approval of the building which is actually used for residence regardless of the classification of the use of the building or injury or whether the authority's structural change is permitted.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu255 delivered on October 10, 1984 (Gong1984,1806) 92Nu626 delivered on May 12, 1992

Plaintiff

Head of Nowon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18059 delivered on April 7, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where a transferor of a house owns another building, whether the other building is a house under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) and Article 15 (1) of the Income Tax Act or Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is the case of party members' decision that whether the other building is a house should be determined by whether it is a building actually offered for residence regardless of the classification of the use of a building or injury caused by the official injury or whether the authority's structural change is permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu626, May 12, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 84Nu25

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff acquired the apartment of this case and owned it on July 15, 1989, before transferring it on November 10, 1989. The court below held that the above apartment of this case and the above 124.95 square meters of urban mentmen block, mentmen block 124.95 square meters of multi-story roof, 35.77 square meters of housing, mentblobble string roof, 99.16 square meters of mentblobble roof, etc., and mentblobble 98.49 square meters of apartment of this case and the above 19.49 square meters of the above apartment of this case were not related to the above 1st apartment of this case, and that the defendant did not use the above 5th apartment house or the above 5th apartment house of this case and did not use the above 5th apartment house of this case as a simple 5th of the above 5th apartment house of this case.7 square meters of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)