b)one house requirement for one household upon the occurrence of inevitable causes due to school diseases;

In order to become the object of non-taxation due to the transfer of one house for one household, due to unavoidable reasons occur while the household member of the transferor has resided in the house even after the period of residence is less than three years, and all members of the household move out to another Si/Eup/Myeon.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of taxation; and

The following facts are acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5 through 9, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1-1 to 10, 13.14, and Eul evidence 3 and all the arguments without dispute between the parties.

가. ㅇㅇ공사 직원인 원고는 1985. 12.경 위 공사 직장주택조합으로부터 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ 등 48 필지의 대지소유권 중 13666.2분의 40.22 지분과 그 대지상의 ㅇㅇ 아파트 ㅇ동 ㅇ호(이하 이 가건 아파트라한다.)를 분양받아 1987. 8. 17. 원고 명의로 소유권보존등기를 경료하였다가, 소외 이ㅇㅇ에게 이 사건 아파트를 매도하여 1989. 11. 2. 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료하였다.

B. In investigating and determining the Plaintiff’s transfer income amount from the transfer of apartment of this case, the Defendant shall apply relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4163 of Dec. 30, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12877 of Dec. 30, 1989; hereinafter the same shall apply), etc. to the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(1) On March 16, 1991, on the ground that there was no preliminary return on asset transfer marginal profits under Article 95 of the Income Tax Act following the transfer of apartment of this case or a final return under Article 100 of the same Act, the transfer value and acquisition value are determined according to the standard market price of the so-called National Tax Service (value under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) and attached Form 1. The transfer income tax was calculated in the same basis and method as the tax invoice, and the Plaintiff was imposed capital gains tax amounting to KRW 11,038,60 and its defense tax amounting to KRW 2,207,720

(2) On May 17, 1991, finding that the apartment of this case, even though it was below national housing size, was erroneously applied high tax rate (40%) between them at the time of the initial disposal, and applying 30%, which is the tax rate stipulated in Article 70(3)2 of the Income Tax Act, attached Form 2. The decision of correction was made to reduce capital gains tax from KRW 8,278,957 and its defense tax from KRW 1,65,790, as stated in the tax invoice;

(3) On April 23, 1992, the defendant found that there was an error in calculating the transfer value (an amount of KRW 105,000,000) and the acquisition value (an amount of KRW 103,000,000) with no notice from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of acquisition, and thus, the standard market price at the National Tax Service cannot be applied, and even if so-called the standard market price (the value under Paragraph (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) is not applied, the former is applied] in the initial decision and the decision of correction of the error, as stated in the tax invoice in attached Table 3. The defendant made a re-decision of correction of the transfer income tax amount of KRW 4,708,470, and its defense tax amount of KRW 941,690 (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is lawful

피고는 사실경위와 관계법령에 따른 이 사건 과세처분이 적법하다고 주장하고, 원고는, 가족들과 함께 대구에서 거주하면서 ㅇㅇ공사 대구지점에 근무하다가 1985. 11. 1.서울 본사로 전근되었으나 원고의 처인 소외 오ㅇㅇ가 갑상선암으로 사경을 헤메고 있어 함께 이사하지 못하고 원고 혼자 서울에서 근무하면서 1987. 8. 17. 이 사건 아파트를 취득하였는데, 그후에도 처가 계속하여 치료를 받고 있었던 까닭에 이 사건 아파트에 입주하지 못하고 있던 중에 원고가 1987. 9. 1. 다시 대구지점으로 전근되어 이 사건 아파트를 매도하였는바, 이 사건 아파트의 양도는 소득세법시행령 제15조 제1항 제3호, 소득세법시행규칙 제6조 제4항 제1호 소정의 재무부령이 정하는 부득이한 사유가 있는 경우 에 해당하므로, 그 양도로 인한 소득은 1세대 1주택의 양도로 인한 소득으로서 소득세법 제5조 제6호 (자)목 소정의 비과세소득이고, 그렇지 아니하더라도, 피고는 이 사건 아파트에 대한 양도차익을 기준시가에 의하여 산출함으로써 원고가 실제로 취득한 양도차익보다 다액으로 산정한 것은 위법하다면서 그 취소를 구한다.

Therefore, first, the income from the transfer of apartment of this case is regarded as non-taxable income.

Article 5 (1) 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act provides that income shall not be imposed on one house for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and the appurtenant land of which does not exceed ten times the area on which the building is fixed; Article 15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "one house for one household shall be owned by one household and its spouse together with the family members living together with them at the same address or same place of residence and for three years in Korea: Provided, That if it falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the period of residence shall not be restricted; subparagraph 3 provides that "it shall not be subject to the inevitable reasons prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy; Article 6 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "if all members of a household move into another Si, Eup, or Myeon due to entry into a school, medical treatment, or business circumstances, and in light of the language and purport of the above provision, it shall not be subject to the transfer of a house for two years or more, even if they move into a house for two years or less.

이에 이 사건의 경우를 살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제9호증, 갑 제10호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11증의 각 기재와 증인 오ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1949. 10. 9.생으로 처와 3명의 자녀가 있는 사실, 원고는 ㅇㅇ공사 대구지점에 근무하다가 1985. 11. 1. 서울 본사로 전근되었으니, 그 처인 오ㅇㅇ가 갑상선암으로 치료를 받고있어 가족이 함께 이사하지 못하고 원고 혼자 서울로 가서 1985. 11. 28.부터는 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ에서, 1986. 11. 25.부터는 같은동 ㅇㅇ의 ㅇㅇ에서 거주해 온 사실, 원고가 서울에서 근무하던 중에 1985. 12.경 ㅇㅇ공사 직장주택조합으로부터 이 사건 아파트를 분양받아 1987. 8. 17. 이 사건 아파트를 취득한 사실, 그후에도 원고의 처가 계속하여 치료를 받고 있었던 까닭에 원고 및 가족들이 이 사건 아파트에 입주하지 못하고 있던 중에 원고가 1987. 9. 1. 다시 대구지점으로 전근되자, 원고는 1987. 9. 22. 가족들이 거주하고 있던 대구 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ A동 ㅇㅇ호로 주민등록을 옮긴 후 1989. 9. 25. 이 사건 아파트를 매도한 사실, 원고가 이 사건 아파트를 매도할 당시에 원고는 이 사건 아파트 이외의 주택을 소유하고 있지 아니한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있지만, 원고가 이 사건 아파트에 거주한 사실이 없고, 이 사건 아파트를 보유한 기간이 5년에 미달하는 이상, 비록 원고의 처가 병중에 있어 원고의 가족이 이 사건 아파트에서 거주할수 없었다 할지라도, 이 사건 아파트의 양도가 소득세가 부과되지 아니하는 1세대 1주택의 양도에 해당한다고는 할 수 없으므로, 이 사건 아파트의 양도로 인한 소득이 비과세소득이 아니라고 하여 양도소득세를 부과한 것은 적법하다고 하겠으니, 이점에 관한 원고의 주장은 이유없다.

Then, according to the provisions of Articles 23(4), 45(1), 95, and 100 of the Income Tax Act and Article 170(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the transfer value and acquisition value in calculating the transfer income amount for the imposition of the transfer income tax shall be based on the standard market price. One of the exception is that the transfer value and acquisition value can be confirmed based on the preliminary return on the transfer marginal profit of assets under Article 95 of the same Act or documentary evidence submitted at the time of the final return on tax base under Article 100 of the same Act. However, the transfer value and acquisition value can be assessed based on the actual transaction price if it can be confirmed based on the provisional return on the transfer marginal profit of assets under Article 95 of the same Act or the final return on tax base under Article 100 of the same Act without any special circumstance. Thus, according to the evidence employed above, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not make a preliminary return on the transfer marginal profit of assets or the final return on tax base even after the transfer value.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

September 30, 1992