The concept of housing in the "one-household housing" under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act;

Housing under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978) mean a building which is actually offered for residence regardless of the use of the official injury in the building.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of December 30, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu322 Delivered on November 22, 1983

Plaintiff

Seoul Southern District Director

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu647 delivered on March 9, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts as a whole: (a) the Plaintiff owned one house constructed over both the lands of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 1 omitted) and one building constructed on the ground (No. 3 omitted); (b) on September 26, 1978, the above (No. 1 omitted) and the (No. 2 omitted) land and one house on the ground; (c) on the other hand, the above (No. 3 omitted) land and one house on the ground were transferred to Nonparty 1; (d) on the ground, the above (No. 3 omitted) land and the building owned by the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer, the above (No. 1 omitted) were two floors; and (e) on the premise that the above (No. 2 omitted, the building was transferred to Nonparty 1, the entire building site and the house at the time of the transfer to Nonparty 3, who did not fall under the above (No. 1, 1963).

2. In light of the records, the court below's examination of the process of evidence preparation and fact-finding conducted by the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and the houses under Article 5 (6) (i) and Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which were enforced at the time of the above transfer, refer to the buildings that are actually offered for residence regardless of the classification of the use of the building injury (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu322 delivered on November 22, 1983). Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is justified, and all of the arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)