[1] The requirements for non-taxation on the transfer income of the previous house where two houses are temporarily held by one household

[2] The court's duty of explanation

[1] Where two houses are temporarily owned by one household, income tax on the transfer of the previous house shall be exempted, and the house shall be transferred to another house within the period (six months in the case of an apartment) under Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995) from the time of acquiring another house for the purpose of moving the house.

[2] Even if it is evident that a party has omitted any assertion about one of the requirements facts, if the materials necessary to determine the omitted issue are sufficiently revealed, it is not necessary to call to the new lusoric party to call attention about the omitted issue, to state his opinion, and to urge him to prove it.

[1] Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 15 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995) / [2] Article 126 (4) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7911 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1644), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu15165 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2137), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10723 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 105)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu3377 delivered on June 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the third ground for appeal

In case where two houses are temporarily owned by one household, in order to be exempted from income tax on the transfer of the previous house, it is the established case of the party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10723, Nov. 21, 1995) that the party member should move his house to another house within the period (6 months in the case of apartment) under Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1760, Aug. 25, 198) from the time he acquired another house for the purpose of moving the previous house, so that he does not feel the need to change the above precedents. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

2. On the first and second grounds for appeal

In this case, the court below held that the plaintiff's transfer of a house to a new house was not a 6-month period from the date of acquisition of a new house to the date of transfer of the house, and that the plaintiff's transfer of the house to a new house was not a 6-month period from the date of acquisition of the house. Thus, the plaintiff's transfer of the house to a new house was not a 6-month period from the date of acquisition of the house to the date of transfer of the house. Thus, in order to reject the plaintiff's claim based on the judgment, the plaintiff's transfer of the house was not a 6-month period from the date of transfer of the house. But the court below did not take all such measures and determined that the plaintiff's transfer of the house to a new house was a 5-month period from the date of transfer of the house to the date of transfer of the 6-month period from the date of acquisition of the house to the date of transfer of the 6-month period from the date of transfer of the previous house to the date of transfer of the house.

However, even if it is evident that the parties had omitted claims concerning one of the non-taxation requirements, if the data necessary to determine the omitted issues are sufficiently revealed, it is not necessary to call attention to the new third party about the omitted issues and to urge him to present his opinion and present his opinion. In this case, a certified copy of resident registration, which is an objective evidence to determine the date and time of the relocation of the house, and a certified copy of the previous house, are present. The plaintiff stated the date and time of the relocation in the complaint as the date and time of the transfer in the certified copy of resident registration, and the plaintiff sells the previous house and purchased another house with the proceeds of the sale, and newly constructed another house at the same place and moved the same house, and thus, the plaintiff sold the previous house, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the purchaser, and the date and time of relocation between the directors, which is the same as the date and the date of relocation in the previous house, cannot be seen as a new resident registration report in the previous house (the plaintiff's new resident registration report to the head of the office at the time of the office at the time of the plaintiff's transfer to the address.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)