Whether a couple who has been living separately for 25 years due to a workplace relationship falls under one house for one household in cases where each couple owns one house.

As a spouse does not have any restrictions on the formation of a household with a resident and a spouse, it falls under one household even if the husband and wife had left separately for a long time. If the husband and wife own one house respectively, they fall under the two owners of two houses for one household.

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

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 30,069,150 against the Plaintiff on March 9, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the following facts may be acknowledged:

A. On November 14, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the multi-family house located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○, to Kim○○, in KRW 745,00,000, and reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 2,794,030 only for the excess portion 60 million by applying the non-taxation provisions on one house for one household on January 31, 2008.

B. However, at the time of the above transfer, the Defendant: (a) owned ○○○○○○○○○○○-1 located in Jinju-si, ○○○○○○-1, and (b) deemed the Plaintiff as a case of two houses for one household; (c) again calculated capital gains tax amount on March 9, 2008 on the ground that the instant house cannot be a single house for one household; (d) accordingly, the Defendant corrected and imposed capital gains tax amounting to KRW 30,069,150 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the disposition of this case, the defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, without going through legitimate pre-trial procedure. However, Article 43 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act (amended by Act No. 9399 of Jan. 30, 2009) and Article 55 (6) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that a person who intends to be dissatisfied with the disposition of national taxes may file a request for examination via the head of the relevant tax office within 90 days from the date when he/she became aware of the disposition. Article 55 (7) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the disposition of this case may file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of national taxes with the defendant within 90 days from the date when he/she was notified of the decision of the request for examination. In full view of the purport of arguments in the items of evidence No. 8-1, No. 8 and No. 9, the plaintiff filed a request for examination of the disposition of this case on March 28, 2008.

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues to the purport that the disposition of this case that the defendant reported otherwise and judged the plaintiff as the two houses of one household is unlawful, although it is reasonable to apply the non-taxation provisions to the transfer of the house of this case as one house of one household, as it is reasonable to apply the non-taxation provisions to the transfer of the house of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 43 (Request for Examination by Board of Audit and Inspection)

Article 55 (Objection to Framework Act on National Taxes)

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

C. Determination

In light of the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstances. It is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the provisions without any justifiable reason. In particular, it is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du731, Apr. 12, 2002). Article 154(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008) provides that “the case of one household is a resident and his spouse’s family member at the same address or same place of residence, and it is not a “the case where one household members together with the above spouse has one house in Korea as of the date of transfer,” and that it constitutes one apartment house with the above spouse at the same time and its spouse at the same time constitutes one house with the same time as the above ○○ apartment house owner’s spouse at the same time as the above 9000-one household or spouse.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate and the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of legitimate disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.