In applying non-taxation for one house for one household, whether the period of the previous residence is aggregated;

The provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act that the period of residence of the destroyed house upon application of one house for one household which is exempt from the capital gains tax shall apply from the transfer after January 1, 1991. Thus, the transfer time is before the revision, and the taxation disposition cannot be deemed to contravene the tax equity or the unity, and it does not constitute one house non-taxation for one household.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(납세고지서사본), 갑 제2호증(양도소득세결정결의서), 갑 제3호증(거주에 관한 증명서), 갑 제4호증(주민등록표등본), 갑 제5호증의 1내지 3(각 등기부등본), 갑 제7호증(건축물 관리대장), 을 제1호증의2(조사내용), 3(양도소득금액결정내역서)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1972.3.6. 종전부터 거주하던 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 4가 125 대 162평방미터 및 그 지상의 단독주택1동(다음부터는 이사건 종전주택 이라고 한다)을 취득하여 이 사건 종전주택에서 계속 거주하던중 1987.4.2.에 이르러 같은동 125의1 대 18.8평방미터를 취득하여 이 사건 종전주택의 부지로 사용하다가 같은해 9.7.경 노후된 종전주택을 헐고 같은해12.24. 위 125 대지위에 벽돌조세멘트 기와지붕 2층 주택 1층 81.34평방미터, 2층 81.34평방미터, 지하실 86.74평방미터(다음부터는 이 사건 주택 이라고 한다)를 신축하여 거주한 사실, 원고는 1989.7.31. 소외 설ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 주택및 그 부지인 위각 대지를 매도한 뒤 같은해9.30. 그 매매대금이 청산되어 이 사건 주택을 명도하고, 같은해10.7.에 이르러 같은해 7.31. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 각 경료한 사실, 이에 피고는 이 사건 주택및 위 각 대지의 양도시기를 1989.9.30.로 보고, 그 취득시기에 관하여는 이 사건 주택은 1987.12.24.로, 위 125의1 대지는 1987.4.2.로 각 보고, 위 125의 대지는 1977.1.1.로 의제하는 한편, 양도차익은 기준시가에 의하여 계산한 다음 관계법령의 규정에 따라 양도소득세금13,565,500원및 그 방위세금2,793,100원으로 산출하여 1990.9.1. 이의 부과처분을 한 사실등을 인정할 수 있고, 달리 반증없다.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate, in light of the purport of the legislation that imposes no capital gains tax on the transfer of the first house of one household which is exempt from capital gains tax for three or more years, and the purport of the tax law interpretation and application principles of the first appeal under Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the fact that the stability of the residential life should be protected, the plaintiff's total period of the living in the new and old house should be determined. Even though the plaintiff resided in the house of this case for one year and nine months, if the period of the living in the previous house of this case exceeds the period of the living in the previous house of this case, the transfer of the house of this case constitutes the transfer of the first house of one household which is exempt from capital gains tax, and therefore, the disposition of

Therefore, according to Article 5 (1) 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and its appurtenant land is subject to non-taxation. According to Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, one house for one household which is exempt from capital gains tax is owned by the resident and his/her spouse for three or more years in the same address or place of residence. The provisions of Article 15 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act concerning the transfer of the house are not applicable to the transfer of the house for 19 years or more if the resident proves that it is one house for one household under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. According to Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the transfer of the house for 19 years or more shall not be applicable to the transfer of the house for 19 years or more, and the provisions of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act concerning the transfer of the house shall not apply to the transfer of the house for 19 years or more.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.