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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① the Plaintiff acquired and possessed the instant house No. 1 on August 4, 2001, and the instant house No. 2 on June 4, 2003; ② on February 4, 2005, the Plaintiff married to E, a person holding another house; ② After the sale of the instant house No. 1 on December 13, 2005 in the process of voluntary auction at Seoul Central District Court, the Plaintiff claimed for a reduction of the transfer income tax rate by applying Article 104 (1) 2-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) to the Defendant by applying the heavy and tax rate of 60% (hereinafter “one household No. 3 houses and tax rate”) on the transfer of the “house No. 13 houses or more” as stipulated in Article 104 (1) 2-3 of the former Income Tax Act.

Then, the lower court determined that the reason why the capital gains tax is excessive to a person holding multiple houses for one household is to ensure stability of the lives of the majority of the people and to restrain real estate speculation by preventing some of the limited goods, namely, housing from concentrating on some people. Accordingly, even if some multi-households bear capital gains tax more, it is difficult to view it as discrimination without reasonable grounds. Since marriage is a combination of men and women on the basis of patriotism and trust, it is difficult to view that the reason that the marriage is treated as three or more houses for one household due to marriage, and the reason that the capital gains tax may be imposed more is affected by the decision of marriage, and it does not have any special provision that can avoid capital gains tax in relation to a person holding three or more houses for one household due to marriage under the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19254, Dec. 31, 2005).