Article 5 (i) Item 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990); the purport of non-taxation from capital gains tax is to; in case where one household owns one house on a certain site and resides therein, and where one household has worn out one house and reconstructed a new house, whether the period of residence should be calculated in calculating the period of residence (affirmative)

In the case of one house for one household under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194, Dec. 31, 1990), the purpose of non-taxation of capital gains tax is not to make a resident of one household who temporarily resides in a certain place for the purpose of earning capital gains or speculation, but to transfer his house to another place for a considerable period of time, and to transfer his house to the other place is to guarantee under the tax law. Therefore, in a case where one household owns one house on a certain site and has resided there for a considerable period of time, if the house is worn out and has been reconstructed, the period of residence of new and old house should be added to the period of residence of new and old house in calculating the period of residence as prescribed in the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and only the period of residence of new house shall not

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act and Article 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 3194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Western Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu13525 delivered on November 25, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1991), and Article 15 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1314 of Dec. 31, 1991), which is exempt from capital gains tax in the case of one house for one household, is that one resident of one household temporarily resides in a place for the purpose of acquiring capital gains tax or speculation, and transfers the house to another place for a considerable period of time, not for one household's own a house on a certain site, and as long as one household owns one house on a considerable period of time and resides in the new house, the house shall be destroyed, and it shall not be based on the aggregate of the residential period of new and new house, and therefore, it shall be justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the judgment below.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)