The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 89(1)3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009) provides that “one house for one household prescribed by the Presidential Decree (excluding expensive houses the value of which exceeds the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree) and income accruing from the transfer of land within a certain area attached thereto” as one of non-taxable capital gains. Article 154(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “one house for one household” shall be deemed as one household if the resident and his spouse share the same livelihood with the family at the same address or same place of residence, and the period of possession of the relevant house is three years or more as of the date of transfer, and that “if the spouse dies or is divorced” under Article 89(2)2 of the same Act provides that “if the spouse does not have a spouse, the spouse shall be deemed as one if the spouse does not have any other spouse.”

On the other hand, the intention of divorce in divorce refers to the intention of resolving the legal marital relationship, so the agreement between the parties who intend to temporarily resolve the marital relationship under the Mana Law is reported of divorce.