Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap324 (O April 30, 2009)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west0737 (No. 13, 2008)

Whether the requirements of one house for one household violate the freedom of residence;

In order to prevent the possession of a house for speculative purposes, if the owner of one house for one household has a defect in the prescribed period of possession and residence, capital gains tax was exempted, so it cannot be deemed that the owner violated his freedom of residence by freely transferring his/her house only when he/she assumes the burden of transfer.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and each disposition of value-added tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff on April 1, 2008 is revoked (the "208 April 6, 2008. 2008. 1. 209,940 won and the first half of 2005. 9,874,250 won and the first half of 2005. 1. 208."

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are the same as the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.