-

Whether the transfer of the above apartment sale right to one house for one household is considered to be a transfer of one house for one household in cases where an apartment unit sold in lots has been transferred prior to the public announcement of sale in lots in return for the purchase of the site and the investment in the redevelopment association along with the building as one house owner (affirmative)

In case where an unauthorized building is owned in the Si and resided in one year or more, and it was inevitably moved to another place due to the implementation of the urban redevelopment project, and the land attached to the redevelopment association along with the building is purchased, and the apartment is sold in return for the investment, and it is transferred before the public announcement of the sale, the above apartment sale right shall be deemed to be one house for one household under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the land attached thereto.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 49 (1) of the Urban Redevelopment Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of Guro Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6905 delivered on November 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, from March 29, 1983 to the land owned by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the court below recognized that the plaintiff transferred the above apartment house ownership to the non-party on May 2, 1989, to the non-party on July 30, 1986, while living together with his family members living together with the above building, and as an urban redevelopment project execution authorization under the Urban Redevelopment Act with respect to the neighboring building including the above building was announced on October 30 of the same year, the plaintiff was a director with his family, and purchased the above site 90.46m2 on February 28, 1987 with the above unauthorized building on a lot, and as the price was invested in redevelopment association with the above unauthorized building, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff acquired the above apartment house ownership to the non-party on February 22, 1988, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff acquired the above apartment house ownership to the non-party on May 13 of the same year as the above apartment redevelopment plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act.

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.