1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed as one house for one household. Therefore, the transfer margin subject to the special deduction for long-term holding is not limited to the transfer margin prior to the approval of the management and disposition plan, but is deemed as the entire transfer margin as well as the house.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. 1) The purport of the special deduction for long-term holding is to induce the sound investment or ownership of real estate through deduction of a certain amount in calculating capital gains from long-term holding mountain, the holding period of which is at least three years, and to deduct the increase in price on capital gains which have the characteristic of nominal income due to price increase. The purpose of applying the high-rate deduction rate up to 80/100 in cases where one house for one household owns one house for a long-term period is to resolve the burden of capital gains tax on the long-term holding of one house for one household, taking into account the fact that one house for one household is essential for the stability of national residential life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du36921, Apr. 23, 2015). Article 95(2) of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013>

The main text of Article 94(1)1 only prescribes the transfer margin of "property pursuant to Article 94(1)1, but the main text of Article 94 is not one house for one household, but the proviso is divided into one house for one household, and the deduction rate for each period of possession is different.

In the past, the Supreme Court has provided the existing house and land to the reconstruction association and approved business plan.