The purport of Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by April 4, 1984) and the requirements for non-taxation of income tax on the transfer income of one house for one household at the time of enforcement of the said Rule.

The purpose of Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by April 4, 1984) is to temporarily become two houses for one household, but the purpose of acquiring another house is to move to the residence and to transfer the previous house within a specified period from the date of acquiring another house. Since there is no restriction that only the case of acquiring another house after the residence period stipulated in Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is exempted from taxation, the transfer of the previous house shall be exempted from income tax regardless of the time of acquiring another house regardless of the time of acquiring another house, if the previous house is transferred within one year and six months from the time of acquiring another house within one year and six months from the time of acquiring another house, until the time of transferring the previous house, regardless of the time of acquiring another house.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by April 4, 1986)

Plaintiff

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1156 delivered on September 22, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, income tax shall not be imposed on the income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "one house for one household shall be owned by one household, and one household, together with the resident and his spouse, who make a living at the same address or same place of residence, shall be the resident in Korea for one or more years." Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1986, Apr. 4, 1986) which was in force at the time of this case, provides that if a household having one house in Korea acquires another house before transferring the former house for the purpose of moving the house, it shall be exempted from taxation on the income accruing from the transfer of the previous house within one year and six months from the date of acquiring the house, the transfer of the previous house shall be limited to the transfer of the house within one year and five years from the date of acquisition of the previous house, regardless of another house.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired the previous house from May 30, 1984 to July 3, 1985, and transferred the previous house to another house acquired on February 28, 1985 for the purpose of moving the house, and that he transferred the previous house to July 15 of the same year within one year and six months from the date of acquiring another house. The court below determined that the transfer income from the transfer of the above previous house must be exempted from taxation pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act by satisfying all the non-taxation requirements under Article 15 (1) of the above Enforcement Decree and Article 6 (1) of the above Enforcement Rule. This is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no argument to criticize the judgment of the court below. The grounds for appeal asserted by the court below are justified and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the family judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)