1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “3.... judgment” in Part 5, 15, 5, 5, 5, 12, 9, 12, 16, 16, 5, 5, 5, and 5, 5, 5, and 4.0, 5, 5, and 5, 420 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and 5, 5, 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited as it is.

2. The following clause is added to the decision of the first instance court No. 9 of the decision of the first instance.

E. The Plaintiff appears to have asserted to the effect that the enactment of the established rules of this case by which the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and the National Tax Service, the affiliated agency of the Defendant, and the National Tax Service, cannot apply the special deduction rate for long-term possession of one house per household to non-residents, and such authoritative interpretation continuously and repeatedly violates the laws and subordinate statutes by intention or negligence while performing duties, and that the act was committed by the public official, which in fact forces the Plaintiff to report and pay capital gains tax in accordance with the established rules of this case, thereby causing loss

On the other hand, if a public official, who is engaged in administrative legislation, has enacted the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule, which is in violation of superior laws such as law, because he/she does not know the relevant laws or fails to have necessary knowledge in enacting the Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule, he/she shall not be deemed to be negligent because he/she is an administrative public official, not a legal expert. However, if the interpretation of superior laws is not clear by itself, and there is a possibility of dispute in interpretation because the interpretation of superior laws is not clear.