Whether non-taxation shall apply to one household as it falls under a house of return to the farm located in an Eup or Myeon area.

Even if a Si in which a house of return to the rural community is located is in a situation that does not differ with a neighboring Myeon area, it cannot be viewed as a house in rural community located in the Eup or Myeon area.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

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 imposition disposition of KRW 59,430,860 against the Plaintiff on August 9, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 22, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred 3, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○, 3,000,000 won for 40-419 housing site and 137.13 square meters for 37.13 square meters for 3,59 billion won for 30,000 won for 40-419 housing site and 137.13 square meters for 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 20,000 won for 1,000 won

B. On August 9, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that notified the Plaintiff of the transfer income tax of KRW 59,430,860 for the amount of KRW 59,860 for a household, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s husband at the time of transfer of ○○ Housing was not an agricultural or fishing village house under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same) and the transfer of ○○ Housing cannot be deemed as a transfer of ○○ Housing, because the Plaintiff’s husband at the time of transfer of ○○ Housing was not an agricultural or fishing village house under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2007, but was dismissed on December 10, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○ Dong-dong, which is a house of return to rural, is a typical rural village regardless of the name of the administrative district, regardless of whether it constitutes an agricultural or fishing village subject to special cases of one household under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, taking into account such substance and characteristics of the administrative district of Nasi-si, but the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of One House for One Household)

Article 155 (Special Cases of One House for One Household)

Article 156 (Scope of Expensive House)

C. Determination

At the time of transfer of ○○ Housing, the Plaintiff’s husband, who was the Plaintiff’s husband at the time of transfer of ○○ Housing, resided together with the Plaintiff in the ○○ Dong Housing acquired on March 13, 2002 for at least three years (the date of transfer to ○○ Dong Housing is January 12, 2002), and the ○○ Dong Housing does not fall under a high-priced house as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and its site area is less than 393 square meters, and the Plaintiff and the ○○dong Housing owned farmland of at least 990 square meters at the time of the domicile of the domicile of the Plaintiff, and the name of the administrative district “○○ Dong in Jeju” was not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings in the evidence No. 2.

According to the above facts, it is clear that ○○ Dong house falls under the house of return to farming: The house of return to farming" under Article 155 (7) 3 and (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. According to the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, in order to exempt capital gains tax on the part other than high-priced assets, ○○ Dong house of return to farming to farming to ○○ house is located in the Eup/Myeon area of the Eup/Myeon.

However, the taxation requirement under the tax law should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text, so long as ○○ Dong is located in ○○ Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong, as alleged by the Plaintiff in the domestic area, even if ○○ Dong Dong is in a situation where ○○ Dong does not substantially differ with a neighboring Myeon area as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that ○○ Dong house is located in the Eup or Myeon area (In addition, the Plaintiff also claims that it goes against the principle of exclusion from disadvantages due to the consolidation of the Si or Gun under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Administrative Measures following the Establishment of Facilities in the Urban and Residential Complex, but as seen earlier, the time when ○○ Dong integrated is far more transferred than the time when ○○ Dong house acquired ○ Dong house, the above argument is without merit).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.