Whether the inventory house which has been unsold for a long time is excluded from the case of determining one house for one household

The disposition that the transfer of the instant house does not constitute one house for one household is legitimate on the premise that the instant house does not fall under the transfer of one house for one household, since it cannot be viewed as a stock of the housing sales business, which is held and leased for a long time after the construction of the apartment house.

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.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑 4호증, 갑 5호증의 1,을 1 내지5호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 1981. 1. 14. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 362 ㅇㅇ아파트 53동 902호(이하 이사건 주택이라고 한다)를 취득하여 거주하다가 1989. 5. 11. 양도한 사실, 피고는 원고가 위 양도당시 이 사건 주택 이외에도 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 513의 1,6 소재 ㅇㅇ연립주택 1동 104호 및 2동 104호(이하 이사건 연립주택이라고 한다)를 소유하고 있어 소득세법 제5조제6호 (자)목 소정의 1세대 1주택에 해당하지 않는다고 보고 이 사건 주택의 양도에 대하여 별지 세액계산명세표 기재와 같이 양도소득세 및 그 방위세를 산출, 1990. 9. 19. 원고에 대하여 청구취지기재 이 사건 부과처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the aforementioned disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the Plaintiff had resided with his family continuously for 8 years or longer since the acquisition of the instant house, and the instant tenement house constitutes a stock of new house construction and sale business, which is subject to income tax, and does not constitute a taxable object of capital gains tax. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition of taxation against the Plaintiff was unlawful, notwithstanding that the instant apartment house is subject to non-taxation as the transfer of one house for one household under the Income Tax Act, even though it is subject to non-taxation.

The term "one house for one household" in subparagraph 6 (i) (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act provides that income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be subject to the transfer income tax, and the term "one house for one household" in the main sentence of Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a household comprised by a resident and his spouse together with his family members living together with him at the same address or same place of residence shall be deemed to own one house in Korea and reside in Korea for three years or more. The term "house" means a building actually used for residence. However, even if a building is used for human residence, if it is newly constructed for the purpose of sale and is leased temporarily because it is not sold temporarily, it shall be deemed that it does not constitute a house as a inventory of

그러나 갑 5호증의 2,3의 각 기재에 증인 이ㅇㅇ의 증언을 종합하면, 원고는 1979. 12. 28. 소외 장ㅇㅇ, 장ㅇㅇ와 함께 24세대의 연립주택을 신축하여 1980. 2.경부터 1982. 2.경까지 사이에 8세대를 분양하고 나머지 16세대는 분양이 되지 아니하여 이중 원고 몫에 해당하는 이 사건 연립주택에 관하여 원고명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 다음 현재까지 이를 다른 사람에게 임대하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는데, 위와 같이 신축후 오랫동안 보유하면서 임대하고 있는 이 사건 연립주택은 주택판매사업의 재고상품이라고 볼 수가 없고 위 법조 소정의 주택에 해당된다고 할 것이므로, 이를 전제로 이 사건 주택의 양도가 소득세법상 비과세대상인 1세대 1주택의 양도에 해당되지 않는다고 보고 한 피고의 이 사건 부과처분은 적법하다.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is without merit because the disposition of this case was unlawful, and it is dismissed.