The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that in light of the purport of recognizing preferential treatment, such as not imposing income tax on the income accrued from the transfer of one house per household, it is difficult to conclude that the disposition of this case is an unlawful disposition that infringes on the plaintiff's property right and the right to pursue happiness, by failing to impose income tax on the transfer income in certain cases where it can be deemed that the transfer of one house owned in the Republic of Korea is not a transfer income tax, or that it is not a temporary residence or transfer of one house for the purpose of speculation. However, in the case where two houses are held, it is not possible to achieve the above purpose without imposing capital gains tax on the high-priced house, regardless of the time of transfer, and it is difficult to conclude that the act of assuming debt, such as the establishment of a right to collateral security, which is the cause of voluntary auction, was based on the transferor's own choice, and it is merely an incidental circumstance irrelevant to the transferor.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on property rights

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