Whether it is subject to special cases of non-taxation for one household when transferring the general house after inheritance of the house from the wife.

The disposition that did not apply the special case of non-taxation on one house for one household, which had already been subject to two houses for one household before inheritance is legitimate.

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 131,165,430 for the Plaintiff on October 8, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 14, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○, 2415 Dong 603, and resided in the said apartment.

B. On June 30, 200, while the Plaintiff’s wife Leecheon-si, ○○○○○○○○○○○, 572 square meters and a single-story housing (68.2 square meters and a site 572 square meters) was acquired and owned, the Plaintiff’s wife died on June 30, 200 and succeeded to the heir, including the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares are larger than the share of other co-inheritors.

C. On December 21, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the above ○ apartment to Nonparty 1, 2006, and reported that the transfer of the above ○ apartment is subject to non-taxation for one household under Article 155(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act at the time of reporting the transfer income tax thereon.

D. On October 16, 2007, the Defendant rendered a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 131,165,430 for one household, on the ground that the transfer of the above ○ apartment to the Plaintiff was not subject to non-taxation since it transferred one of them under the condition of two houses for one household (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(e) Implementation of procedures of the previous trial;

The appeal is filed on October 23, 2007; the appeal is dismissed on December 31, 2007; and the appeal is filed on February 15, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

According to Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in case where one household possessing one inherited house and one other house (hereafter referred to as "ordinary house" in this paragraph) respectively in Korea transfers the ordinary house, it shall be deemed that it owns one house in Korea, and thus subject to tax exemption for one household, the single-story house inherited from this ○○ order falls under the inherited house, the transferred ○ apartment constitutes the ordinary house, and the transferred ○ apartment constitutes the general house, and the transfer of each of the above houses by the Plaintiff is ultimately subject to tax exemption for one house for one household. However, the instant disposition in this case based on the different premise is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

Article 89 (Non-Taxable Transfer Income Tax)

Article 154 (Scope of “One House for One Household”)

Article 155 (Special Cases concerning One House for One Household)

4. Determination

Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the purpose of Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is to relieve any disadvantage caused by the extinction of non-taxation benefits of capital gains tax by granting two houses owned before inheritance in cases where a person who possesses one house for one household and is exempted from capital gains tax becomes two houses for one household due to the reason that he/she is inherited without his/her intention or choice (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15680, Feb. 9, 1993).

Before the above inheritance in this case, the plaintiff acquired and possessed the above ○ apartment and the above ○○ apartment, which was composed of the plaintiff and the single household, respectively, and only one household was two houses due to inheritance. Thus, the special exception under Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit and the disposition of this case is legitimate on different premise (Article 155 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act does not stipulate that the application of this case is excluded in the case where the plaintiff becomes two houses for one household due to inheritance, and such interpretation is in violation of the principle of strict interpretation under the tax law. However, if Article 155 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides the special case of one house for one household, provides that if the person who has one house for one household becomes two houses for one household due to inevitable reasons, the exception is recognized so that the person who has one house for one household does not possess one house as a house for one household, and the same purport is easily known to the general delivery, and it is reasonable to exclude the application of the special case in the case where the inheritance and the superior are two houses for one household, and the above argument of the plaintiff is not reasonable).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.