(a) Requirements for the transfer of one house for one household under Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act to be exempt from the transfer income tax;

(b) the validity of Article 6(3)2 of the same Enforcement Rule.

A. Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer of a house to another house that was newly acquired while residing in the previous house shall be exempt from income tax because it is not limited to the case where another house is acquired after the retention period as provided by Article 15(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, if the transfer of the previous house satisfies the requirements for retention period as provided by Article 15(1)2 of the previous Enforcement Decree and only if the previous house is transferred within one year from the time of acquisition of another house, it shall be exempted from income tax

B. The requirement of Article 6(3)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act requires that “it shall be confirmed that there is no ownership of a house other than the house transferred by a certified copy of the resident registry or a certified copy of land or house ledger at the domicile of the resident after the date of acquisition of the transferred house” shall be invalid beyond the delegation limit of the parent law by prescribing that Article 15(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act of the same Act as the mother law provides that it shall be proved to the extent that the house of one household does not constitute one house of the

(a)Article 15(1)2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 6(1)(b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act;

(a) Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Nu12988 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993,763). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu971 delivered on June 28, 198 (Gong1988,1120) delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong192,131)

Plaintiff

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu27647 delivered on January 28, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act, income tax shall not be imposed on the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to the main sentence of Article 15(1) and Article 15(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the term “one house for one household from Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Act to one resident and his spouse together with the same household at the same address or place of residence shall be deemed to have been owned for three or more years in the Republic of Korea: Provided, That under Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the term “where the period of possession of the house is five or more years, and the resident is proved to have been one house for one household under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, it shall be deemed that the household having one house at home acquires the house for the purpose of transferring it to another house within one year, and the provisions of Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be applied to the previous house within 19 years.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 17, 1985, the court below found that the plaintiff acquired the previous house located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) on October 1, 1989 and transferred the house to that place on April 17, 1990 for the purpose of moving the residence, and then transferred the previous house on August 10 of the same year. The plaintiff possessed the previous house for five years or more at the time of transferring the previous house. The other house is merely a temporary house at the time of acquiring the previous house for moving the house for the purpose of moving the residence. Since the previous house was transferred within the period stipulated in Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Rule, it constitutes a non-taxation requirement as at the time of transferring the previous house. This is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below in other opinion.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)