1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 28, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the building B and C (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul-si, but transferred KRW 715,000,000 on November 1, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff’s spouse continues to own the instant building D and E (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant childcare center”) on January 20, 199, and deemed that the instant housing transfer did not constitute one house non-taxation requirement for one household, and reported and paid KRW 82,322,540, capital gains tax for the transfer of the instant housing on November 17, 2017.

C. After that, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant childcare center should be excluded from the number of houses owned when determining the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household as it was used for a long time as a childcare center, not “house,” and that one household’s non-taxation provision should be applied to the transfer of the instant house. On December 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the Plaintiff’s refund of the said transfer income tax paid by the Defendant to the Defendant.

On February 20, 2019, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is reasonable to include the number of houses owned at the time of determining whether the instant childcare center falls under non-taxation requirements for one household even if it was used as a childcare center.

E. The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 28, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The issue of whether the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes “house” included in the number of houses owned when determining the requirements for non-taxation for one household’s house should be determined based on “whether the building was actually used for a de facto residential purpose.”