Whether two houses as of the date of approval for reconstruction project plan fall under the special case of one house for one household.

Although two houses for one household as of the date of authorization of the business plan, the transfer of the right to move in in in this case is subject to the special case of "one house for one household" which satisfies the non-taxation requirements.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

Article 155 (16) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Special case of one house

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the ' June 16, 2006' shall be corrected to ' July 21, 2006'.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 67,361,720 for the Plaintiff on January 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. “The fact that it is unreasonable .... which was reconstructed” in the 6th 13-17th part of the 6th 13-17 line “................. ① In the case where the previous house is destroyed or lost, and a new house is acquired while it was reconstructed, it shall be considered as an extension of the previous house, and if the reconstructed house is transferred within a certain period from the completion of the reconstruction house, it shall be considered as a taxation practice of the National Tax Service that no capital gains tax is imposed on the transfer of the reconstructed house. However, even though the reconstructed house is extended or converted into the previous house, it shall be exempted from taxation if the ownership of the reconstructed house

B. Change of Article 154(1) and Article 155(16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Article 154(1) and Article 155(16) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as follows:

The former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18529 of August 30, 2004)

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Scope of one house for one household

(1) The term “one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in subparagraph 3 of Article 89 of the Act means the case where a household comprised by a resident and his spouse together with the family living together with the same address or same residence (hereinafter referred to as a “one household”) in Korea as of the transfer date, and where the relevant house is held for not less than 3 years (in the case of a house located in a subdivision, day, mountain village, mountain village, mountain village, mountain village, or new urban area designated and publicly notified as a planned area for housing site development under Article 3 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, the relevant house is held for not less than 3 years and the period of residence is not less than 2 years during the retention period): Provided, That where one household possesses one house in Korea as of the transfer date and falls under any of the following subparagraphs, it shall not be subject to a restriction on the retention period and residing period (hereinafter referred to as “ omitted”):

Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Special Cases concerning One House for One Household)

Where a member of a maintenance and improvement project association (in the case of a housing redevelopment project, it is limited to the person who owns the existing house falling under Article 154 (1) as of the date of removal of the existing house) who implements a housing redevelopment project or a housing reconstruction project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (in the case of a housing redevelopment project, the authorization date of management and disposal plan under Article 48 of the same Act in the case of a housing reconstruction project, or the authorization date of project implementation under Article 28 of the same Act in the case of a housing reconstruction project or before it is removed, it is limited to the person who owns the existing house falling under Article 154 (1) as of the date of removal of the existing

2. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit. However, since the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that " June 16, 2006" is a clerical error of " July 21, 2006", the above error is corrected ex officio and it is so decided as per Disposition.