Even if the relationship with the spouse was broken down, it cannot be deemed as a case of death or divorce, and thus does not constitute a non-taxation requirement of capital gains tax.

Since the Plaintiff and his/her spouse were legally married at the time of transfer of real estate, even if the relationship with the Plaintiff and his/her spouse was practically broken down, it cannot be viewed as a case where his/her spouse died or divorced and thus,

Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act

2014 Madada1942 Undue gains

KimA

1.Korea 2.B

September 17, 2014

October 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Plaintiff shall pay 5% interest per annum to the Plaintiff, from October 1, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff purchased ownership of the instant real estate on November 12, 2001 and sold the instant real estate to NewCC on April 2, 201, and on September 30, 201, the transfer income tax of the instant real estate to the Defendant Republic of Korea on September 30, 2013. However, the Plaintiff was in de facto distress with the maximum DD, the spouse of the Plaintiff, under the law at the time, and the marital relationship with the Plaintiff was the case where the spouse under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154(2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Plaintiff’s death or divorce, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s act of transfer income tax and the instant real estate owner constitutes unjust enrichment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of transfer of the instant real estate constitutes a transfer income tax exemption under Article 89 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s act of transfer of the instant real estate constitutes unjust enrichment.

Article 89 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act provides that one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be exempted from capital gains tax. According to Article 154 (1) and (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree under Article 89 (1) 3 (a) of the Income Tax Act means that one household (hereinafter referred to as "one household") composed of a resident and his/her spouse together with his/her family members living together with the same address or same place of residence as of the transfer date owns one house in Korea as of the transfer date, and the period of possession of the house concerned is two years (three years in case of a resident falling under paragraph (8) 2) or more. Thus, even if his/her spouse dies or is divorced, the Plaintiff’s spouse shall not be deemed to be one household at the time of the transfer of real estate under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act’s Article 94 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, even if one spouse of the resident’s spouse died and 97.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that at the time of the transfer of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant real estate constitutes the requirements for non-taxation from capital gains tax under Article 89(1)3 of the Income Tax Act and Article 154(1) and (2)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is without merit without further review

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.