The resident and his spouse are also belonging to the same household even if they are living separately.

The spouse of a resident does not require the same living at the same address or residence as the resident, so there is no illegality in determining one house for one household as the number of houses owned by the plaintiff and Kim Jong-C, so long as the marriage relationship is not resolved even if the plaintiff is separated from the resident.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal disposition against the plaintiff on July 20, 2009 against the plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1997. 6. 11. ○○ ○○구 ○○동 534 ◇◇아파트 103동 1203호(이하 이 사건 주택이라 한다)를 취득하여 2008. 5. 22. 양도하였는바, 당시 원고는 2008. 3. 20. ○○ △△구 △△동 1487-7 □□아파트 3동 607호를 취득하여 보유 중이었고, 원고의 배우자인 김AA은 2008. 5. 8. ○○ ◁◁구 ◁◁동 949-4 ♧♧아파트 101동 610호를 취득하여 보유 중이었다.

B. Upon filing a final report on the transfer income tax on May 31, 2009, the Plaintiff reported the calculation of KRW 84,578,769 by applying the transfer income tax rate of 60% to three houses for one household. However, on June 24, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the Defendant for non-taxation on the ground that the transfer of the instant house constitutes one house for one household, and the Defendant issued a notice of rejection (hereinafter the instant refusal disposition) on July 20, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on October 1, 2009, but received a decision of dismissal on December 8, 2009, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 5, 2010.

2. The plaintiff's master;

The Plaintiff was selected from the date of the transfer of the instant house since 2007, and became two houses for one household by temporarily acquiring 1487-7 Dong 1487-7 Dong 1487 and 607, ○○○○○○○○ △△-dong 1487-7 Dong 1407 before the transfer. As for the transfer of the instant house, the Plaintiff became three houses for one household on the ground that he was unable to know the fact that he had acquired a separate house at the time of transfer, and that he did not know that he did not own a separate house at the time of transfer, this would be in line with the purpose of legislation with the capital gains tax among the transfer income tax, and furthermore, it goes against the principle of substantial taxation on the Plaintiff, who did not impose a tax on the KimA, who actually

3. Determination

Article 154 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "in the case of one house for one household, the spouse of the resident and his/her spouse together with the family members who make a living at the same address or same place of residence as that of the same Do, shall not require the resident to share the same house at the same address or same place of residence as that of the resident, and even if the plaintiff is living separately with KimA even if the marriage relationship is not resolved, there is no illegality in determining one house for one household as the number of the houses owned by the plaintiff and KimA as long as the marriage relationship is not resolved.

In the determination of three houses for one household, the number of houses held by the plaintiff and KimA is the same, and in the case of three houses for one household temporarily, there are no exceptional provisions such as granting the non-taxation benefits for one household in the case of two houses for one household temporarily, and there is no illegality of applying the transfer income tax rate of three houses for one household as to the transfer of the house in this case.

The assertion that KimA actually acquired the transfer income of the instant house does not appear to be KimA, or there is no evidence to acknowledge it (if only a person to whom the transaction occurred is KimA, the Plaintiff becomes a trustee, and there is no assertion or evidence as to the title trust, and there is no assertion or evidence as to the title trust) by the Plaintiff, the taxation on the Plaintiff does not violate the principle of substantial taxation.

Therefore, there is no error in the rejection disposition of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.