The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 95 (1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that Article 95 (1) and (2) of the same Act provides that with respect to assets under Article 94 (1) 1 of the same Act, whose holding period is not less than three years, an amount calculated by multiplying the gains from transfer of the relevant assets by the deduction rate per holding period shall be the special deduction amount for long-term holding, and the deduction amount of maximum of 30/100 for each holding period shall be applied to gains from transfer, and in principle, the deduction rate of maximum of 80/100 for each holding period shall be applied to assets falling under one house of one household (including land annexed thereto) prescribed by Presidential Decree.

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff acquired the previous house of this case constructed on the land of this case before January 1, 1985, and removed it on March 27, 1996, and reconstructed the newly-built house of this case on September 30, 1996 and transferred it on July 9, 2008; (b) the previous house of this case and the newly-built house of this case constitute one house for one household to which the high long-term holding special deduction rate applies; and (c) the special deduction system for long-term holding was established to induce the sound investment or ownership of real estate through the deduction of a certain amount in calculating the transfer income amount for long-term holding mountain with a holding period of not less than three years; and (d) the purport of applying the deduction rate of up to 80/100 to the maximum amount of 10/100 of the transfer income tax to 14/210 of the former Enforcement Decree to 214/10 of the Housing Act.