Application of the provisions on reduction and exemption of one house for one household to non-residents

Even in cases where a resident acquires and owns a house in the Republic of Korea and becomes a nonresident due to the departure of all members of the household from the Republic of Korea, the transfer of the house shall be non-taxable regardless of whether the number, possession, and requirements for residence at the time of overseas relocation meet

Article 154 (Scope of One House for One Household) of the Income Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") provides that "income from the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be non-taxation, and Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 17825 of Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree") provides that "one house for one household" and "one house for one household" under subparagraph 3 of Article 89 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be applicable to cases where one household which constitutes one house within the country as of the date of transfer with its family members living together at the same address or same place of residence, and the period of possession of the house is not less than 3 years (in cases of a house located in 00 city, its holding period is 3 years or more, it refers to cases where it constitutes one house for 10 years or more.

In the same purport, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired and owned the house of this case and became a non-resident due to the departure of all members of the household to move to a foreign country under the Emigration Act, and finally transferred the house of this case. The court below determined that the income from the transfer of the house of this case is non-taxable because one household constituted the plaintiff as of the transfer date of the house of this case owned only one house in Korea. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the application of the non-taxation provision of one house for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu4436 Decided October 28, 2005

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

This Court's reasoning is as follows, except for the following additions to the 8th 13th e.g., the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Article 154 (1) 2 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 71 (2) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act do not interpret as above, among the plaintiff's family members, the plaintiff's family members left Korea on November 13, 1980 as the plaintiff's family members, wife, head of South, South and North Korea, and children, but the son among the members of the household continued to reside in the above litigation unit and left Korea on September 17, 1992, and left Korea on September 17, 1992. Thus, the plaintiff's all members of the household who left Korea as of September 17, 1992 and became non-resident. Thus, the plaintiff owned only one house at the time of departure of all the members of the household, and as of December 30, 2002, the transfer date of the above transportation unit is not subject to the transfer income tax of the plaintiff's above transportation unit."

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just and without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.