1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment 1, 506 (hereinafter the instant house) and moved to the United States on December 4, 2001. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house and reported and paid the transfer income tax of 82,732,986 won for the year 2009, but received refund of KRW 68,459,340 via the Board of Audit and Inspection’s request.

B. On March 17, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate constitutes one house for one household, and thus, the transfer income tax should not be imposed. However, the Defendant issued a request for correction to the Defendant, who rejected the request (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on May 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4 through 7, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 154(1) proviso 2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”) applies to a nonresident who does not meet the retention period and residence period of one household. Since the Plaintiff satisfied the retention period and residence period, capital gains tax should be exempted pursuant to the main sentence rather than the proviso of Article 154(1) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. (2) Articles 154(1) proviso 2(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 30(2) of the Addenda thereof, which are the basis of the instant disposition, prohibit property deprivation and taxation by retroactive legislation, are contrary to Article 13(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, violates the freedom of movement of overseas residents, unfairly discriminates, and violates the principle of excessive prohibition

B. Determination 1) The main text of Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act amended by the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19327, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 154(1) of the Income Tax Act: “one house for one household as prescribed by Presidential Decree” in Article 89(1)3 of the Act refers to a resident and his spouse.