The case holding that the right to sell apartment units shall be regarded as one house for one household and the transfer of land attached thereto, and the income from such transfer shall be regarded as non-taxable income.

In a case where a plaintiff, who owned one house for one household in Korea with his family members living together with his family members and resided in Korea for one year or more, inevitably moved into another place due to the enforcement of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and purchased a site attached to the above building and invested in the redevelopment partnership along with the above building in return for the purchase of apartment, and transferred the above apartment sale right prior to the public notice of the sale in lots, the above apartment sale right transferred by the plaintiff shall be deemed as non-taxable income pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509 of Aug. 25, 198), Article 49 (1) and (2) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 62 (1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act, and the land attached thereto.

Article 5 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 23 of the same Act, Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509 of Aug. 25, 198), Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 49 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Plaintiff

Head of Guro Tax Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 7,657,200 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 1989 and its defense tax of KRW 1,531,440 shall be revoked.

Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1781, Dec. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1965, Feb. 3, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 19655, Feb. 3, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 19655, Feb. 29, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19657, Feb. 19, 200; Presidential Decree No. 19650, Feb. 19, 200>

In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant taxation disposition is lawful on the grounds of the aforementioned applicable provisions, grounds for disposition, etc., the Plaintiff asserted that the instant taxation disposition is lawful, as prescribed in Article 5 subparag. 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Income Tax Act, Article 49 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 62 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act, the transfer of the said apartment sale right is deemed to be a transfer of the previous unauthorized building which is one house for one household, and land appurtenant thereto, and accordingly, the said transfer income tax disposition

Therefore, Article 5 of the Income Tax Act provides that no income tax shall be imposed on the income falling under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 6 (i) of the same Act provides that one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and the land appurtenant thereto shall not exceed 10 times the area on which the building is built. Article 15 (1) 6 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "one house for one household" shall be deemed as one house owned by one resident and his spouse and one household members who share the same livelihood at the same address or same place of residence and shall be deemed to reside within the Republic of Korea for 1 year or more, since the above Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that "one house for one house for one household" shall be deemed as one house for the first time after the date of sale in lots and the above Article 15 (1) 6 (i) of the same Act provides that the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the first time after the date of sale in lots of the building site.

Furthermore, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had been removed from the building without permission of this case on October 30, 1986 and invested in redevelopment association by acquiring the ownership of the site of this case attached to the building without permission of this case on February 28, 1987. Thus, the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of one house for one household. Thus, as seen earlier, the plaintiff owned the building without permission of this case on the site of this case owned from March 29, 1983 and resided in Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 30, 1986 due to the notice of approval for the execution of redevelopment project of this case on October 30, 1986, and moved to another place on February 28, 1987, since the plaintiff acquired the building of this case from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 28, 1987 and invested in the redevelopment association on the building of this case on the site of this case, and it did not comply with the above requirements of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act for 13 years or more from 198.25 years to the above without permission.

Then, according to the provisions of Article 49 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, the plaintiff can acquire the ownership of the apartment of this case only after September 14, 198, which is the day following the announcement of the sale of the apartment of this case. Since the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership of the apartment of this case until the announcement of the sale of the apartment of this case was made, and the above apartment of this case can be seen as the land attached thereto, the plaintiff cannot be seen as the previous unauthorized building and the land attached thereto. Since the plaintiff transferred the ownership of the apartment of this case on May 2, 198, the announcement of the sale of the apartment of this case, before the sale of the apartment of this case was made, the plaintiff transferred the ownership of the apartment of this case, not the apartment of this case. The plaintiff cannot be seen as the transfer of the ownership of the apartment of this case, which is the right to acquire the above transfer of the apartment of this case, and therefore, the tax disposition of this case is legitimate, so even if the plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the above apartment of this case before September 14, 198.

Therefore, since the taxation disposition of this case is illegal, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of this case is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)