1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is 2.B., which is the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance concerning the legitimacy of disposition.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's transfer of the house of this case constitutes two houses for one household because the plaintiff held the right of sale under 818 and 1206 as well as the right of sale at the time of transfer. Article 89 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) provides that where one household prescribed by the Presidential Decree acquires and possesses the association member's relocation right due to the approval of the management and disposition plan under Article 48 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and transfers the house, the exemption from capital gains tax on one house for one household under Article 89 (1) 3-1 shall not apply: Provided, That this does not apply to cases prescribed by the Presidential Decree for unavoidable reasons, and Article 156-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2138 of Nov. 28, 2008) provides that the plaintiff acquires the house and one association member's relocation right within 16.