Whether it is one house for one household, if the total period of residence and holding period of the old house are satisfied;

The case holding that it is a transfer of one house for one household if the total period of the old house exceeds the prescribed residence period and retention period in addition to the old house, since there is no other house owned by the other house, and it is not based on only on the residence or retention period of the new house when the old house was destroyed and reconstructed at that place

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 9,061,366 and defense tax of KRW 1,812,274 against the Plaintiff as of September 16, 1991 is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition of this case;

갑 제6호증의 1,2, 갑 제7,8,9호증, 을 제1 내지 5호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 1981. 11. 20.경 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 133평방미터(이하 이사건 대지라고 한다) 및 그 지상 단층주택 60.56평방미터(이하 구건물이라고 한다)를 취득하여 그곳에서 거주하여 왔는데, 위 주택이 노후하여 이를 철거하고 1990. 3. 20.경 그곳에 벽돌조 평슬래브지붕 2층 단독주택 1층 및 2층 각 59.68평방미터 지층 60.78평방미터(이하 이사건 건물이라고 한다)를 신축하고(같은달 31. 보존등기를 마침) 이에 거주하다가 같은해 7. 23. 이사건 대지 및 건물을 소외 이ㅇㅇ에게 양도하고 같은해 8. 31. 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 준 사실, 원고는 이사건 건물 이외의 주택을 소유한 사실은 없는데도 이사건 건물에 거주한 기간만으로는 1세대1주택의 거주 또는 보유기간에 미치지 못하여 이사건 대지 및 건물의 양도가 1세대1주택의 양도에 해당하지 않는 것으로 알고 1990. 9. 29. 위 양도로 인한 자산양도차익예정신고를 하면서 그 신고액인 양도소득세 금6,891,570원 및 방위세 금1,378,310원을 자진납부한 사실, 그런데 피고는 원고가 위 예정신고를 하면서 양도소득특별공제를 과다하게 하였다면서, 1991. 9. 16. 위 양도로 인한 양도소득세를, 기준시가에 의한 양도 및 취득가액을 기초로 한 양도차익에서 적정한 양도소득특별공제액만을 빼고 산출한 양도소득세액에서 예정신고납부세액공제를 하고 이에 신고 및 납세불성실가산세를 합한 금9,061,366원으로, 방위세를 금1,812,274원(가산세 포함)으로 각 확정하고, 위 각 금액에서 원고가 자진납부한 양도소득세 금6,891,570원 및 방위세 금1,378,310원을 공제한 양도소득세 금2,169,790원 및 방위세 금433,960원을 같은달 30.까지 납부할 것을 고지한 사실(피고의 1991. 9. 16.자 부과처분은 위 자산양도로 인한 양도소득세는 금9,061,366원이고 방위세는 금1,812,274원이라고 확정하는 처분이고, 위 납부할 것을 고지한 양도소득세 금2,169,790원 및 방위세 금433,960원만의 부과처분은 아니라고 할 것이므로 이하 양도소득세 금9,061,366원 및 방위세 금1,812,274원의 부과처분을 이사건 부과처분이라고 한다. 대법원 1985. 11. 26. 선고 83누230 판결 참조)을 인정할 수 있다.

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff owned only the building of this case to be a house at the time of the above transfer, and the building of this case was constructed as a new building because it was too worn out, and if the building of this case is calculated from the time when the building of this case owned or resided in it, the defendant takes the disposition of this case on the ground that the transfer of the site of this case and the building of this case does not fall under the transfer of one house for one household, and the transfer of the building of this case does not fall under the transfer of one house for one household. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful at this point. The above transfer was made before this new construction of Article 15 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190) and the dwelling or the retention period to fall under the transfer of one house for one household should be the residence or retention period of the newly constructed building, so the disposition

The legislative intent of non-taxation of capital gains tax on one house for one household under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is not to gain capital gains tax or temporarily reside and move to another place for a considerable period of time, but to transfer the house to another place while living there is a need to guarantee under the tax law. Therefore, in case where one household owns one house on a certain site and resides or owns it for a considerable period of time, if the house is too worn out, and thereafter he reconstructs the new house at this point, it shall be calculated by adding up the period of residence or retention of the new house to the period of possession of the new house (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5713 delivered on July 28, 192).

As acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff did not own a house other than the building of this case at the time of the above transfer, and the total sum of the buildings of this case from the time when the plaintiff owned and resided in the building of this case exceeds 3 years or 5 years under Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, so the transfer of the site of this case and the building of this case constitutes a transfer of one house for one household under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, i.e., the transfer of the site of this case shall be deemed to constitute a transfer

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.