Suwon District Court 2013Gudan15239, 2014.22

Early High Court Decision 2013J 1573 (O5, 2013)

single house for one household due to the circumstances of school attendance service.

It is acquired by replacing the house outside the Seoul Metropolitan area with the second Cheongju house under the continued situation due to inevitable reasons such as school attendance and working conditions, so it is the transfer of one house for one household.

Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2014Nu6504 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

This AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan15239 Decided September 22, 2014

on October 14, 2015

on October 07, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 386,988,640 imposed on the Plaintiff on January 16, 2013 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the "judgment of 2.D." among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

D. Determination

Article 89 (1) 3 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "No income shall be imposed on the transfer of one house for one household prescribed by Presidential Decree," and Article 155 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act newly established after the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21138 on November 28, 2008 provides that "if one household owns one house outside the Seoul Metropolitan area and one house acquired for unavoidable reasons, such as entering school prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, work circumstances, medical treatment for diseases, and other unavoidable reasons in Korea respectively, transfers the ordinary house, Article 154 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "if one household transfers the house in Korea and one house outside the Seoul Metropolitan area, it shall be deemed that it owns one house in Korea, and Article 2 of the Addenda provides that "from the date this Decree enters into force," Article 71 (3) and (2) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "from the first transfer of the house after the enforcement of this Decree to a new middle school or an elementary school."

In full view of the above facts and the above provisions, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s establishment of Article 155(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was newly established after the transfer of the first Cheongju Housing, and the said Enforcement Decree was applied from the first transfer after the enforcement of the Decree, and thus, whether the Plaintiff constitutes one house for one household under the above provision ought to be determined on the basis of the relationship between the instant

Therefore, at the time of transfer of the instant house which is a general house, the Plaintiff only owned one house for 2 Cheongju and the instant house in Korea outside the Seoul metropolitan area, and even if the Plaintiff acquired the instant house for 2 Cheongju while owning the first Cheongju, the reason for acquiring the instant house for 1 Cheongju was to move out of the Seoul metropolitan area, and the relevant workplace was to move out of the Seoul metropolitan area, and as his children enter the school in the situation where Cheongcheon-gun-gun-gun-gun is now located, they disposed of the first Cheongju house immediately after they acquired the instant house for 2 Cheongju to move out of the school. This is because it was acquired by replacing the instant house for 2 Cheongju house under the circumstances where it is inevitable to own the house located outside the Seoul metropolitan area due to the inevitable reasons such as school attendance and work situation, the disposition of the instant house located outside the Seoul metropolitan area pursuant to Article 155(8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act constitutes the transfer of the instant house for 11 household. Ultimately, therefore, the allegation of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and it