One house for one household shall be exempted from taxation;

At the time of the transfer of an apartment, the instant house is owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a person holding two houses for one household and cannot be deemed as a person holding one house for one household, which is a requirement for exemption from capital gains tax.

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act (one house for one household)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Gwangju High Court Decision 2006Nu162 Decision

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 10, 1992, the Plaintiff purchased ○○-gu ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 77 Dong 401 (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under ○○ District Court ○○○○○ District Registry No. 13321, Nov. 16, 1992. On March 30, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the above apartment to Nonparty ○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under 38915, which was received on April 30, 203 by the same registry office, and did not report the transfer income tax on the ground that it falls under the case of transferring one house for one household.

B. At the time of the transfer of the above apartment, the Defendant issued a disposition to notify the Plaintiff of KRW 31,855,320 on March 2, 2004, on the ground that the Plaintiff owned a wooden flag and a multi-story housing of KRW 85.43 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) that is constructed on the ○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○ 278 square meters on the ground that the said apartment does not constitute one house for one household (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On December 19, 2001, the non-party 1, 200, who was the plaintiff's shot○, borrowed money of KRW 18 million under the plaintiff's joint and several guarantee from the non-party 1, 200, but failed to pay it, the above Kim○ applied for a compulsory auction of real estate on the above ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong 278 square meters and on its ground, which was owned by the plaintiff on March 26, 2002.

(2) Around September 2002, Non-party ○○, who is his father, decided to purchase from the Plaintiff the above ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong 278 square meters and the instant housing, etc., KRW 20 million. On September 30, 2002, he remitted KRW 20 million to the account in the name of Non-party ○○○, the wife of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of the loan to the above Kim○-dong ○-dong ○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○ ○○-dong ○○ ○○ ○○

(3) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant housing ○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong 278 square meters and the instant housing. However, the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant housing ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong 278 square meters due to the difference between the entries on the real estate registration injury and the entries on the general building management ledger. On January 9, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant housing ○-○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○

(4) If so, even though the instant apartment was registered in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer of the said apartment, since it had already been sold or donated to ○○○, the transfer of the said apartment constitutes a non-taxation subject to the transfer tax, as the transfer of the housing at 1st century

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 29, 2001, Nonparty 1, who was the Plaintiff, was jointly and severally suretyed by the Plaintiff at the time of borrowing 18 million won from Nonparty ○○ on December 29, 2001, but he did not repay the borrowed money, Kim○ on March 26, 2002, he applied for compulsory auction of real estate as of March 25, 2002, as to 27 square meters above ○○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong 278 square meters and above ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong dong ○○○○○○-dong dong 27 square meters (hereinafter “auction real estate”). Around March 25, 2002, ○○○ District Court issued an application for compulsory auction of real estate as of March 25, 2002.

(2) Accordingly, on September 30, 2002, the above ○○ deposited KRW 20 million in the Plaintiff’s account of Park Jong-○, the wife, and on October 8, 2002, the Plaintiff withdrawn the money from the above account and paid KRW 20 million to Kim○○, thereby being withdrawn from the above compulsory auction by Kim○.

(3) On January 9, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to ○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, 278 square meters. As to the instant housing, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 30, 2004, which was after the transfer of the apartment.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2-6, 7, 8, and 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

(c) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form shall be as follows.

D. Determination

Considering that the Plaintiff’s testimony of this case to ○○○○○ by selling or selling the instant house to ○○○○○○, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s above evidence Nos. 2-6, 7, 8, and 6-8 (including each number), and part of evidence Nos. 25 of this case’s evidence Nos. 2-6, 26, 3-1, and 25, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff obtained the Plaintiff’s order to sell or sell the instant house to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s Housing, including the above evidence No. 2-6, and the entire purport of oral argument No. 25, the Plaintiff, including the above evidence No. 20, should be considered to have obtained the Plaintiff’s order to sell or purchase the instant house to ○○○○○○○ Housing, and thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s ownership to have been distributed to ○○○○ Housing without consideration.

Ultimately, at the time of the transfer of apartment, the instant housing is owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as one owner of one house for one household, which is a requirement for non-taxation of capital gains tax, because the Plaintiff falls under the two owners of two houses for one household.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.