[1] The purport of Article 15 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 6 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act concerning the non-taxation object at the time of transferring one house for one household

[2] The case holding that the transfer of apartment houses with less than three years holding period located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City is exempt from taxation, while all households move to Guri-si in the past

[1] The purpose of Article 15 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) and Article 6 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995) that prohibits transfer of one house owned in Korea to another Si/Eup/Myeon due to the entrance into school, medical treatment of diseases, situations of work, or business so that all households can not reside in the corresponding domicile or residence for not less than three years due to the removal from the corresponding domicile or residence of another Si/Eup/Myeon, the purpose of Article 15 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994) and Article 6 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995) is

[2] In a case where one house owner of one household who worked in Samsungdong branch of a bank and resided in the apartment located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City transferred the apartment house to Gu Ri branch through the Jeonju-si branch, and all members of the household move to Gu Ri, and reside in Gu Ri for less than three years, the case reversing the judgment of the court below that it is not subject to capital gains tax exemption on the ground that the whole household's moving to Gu Ri city and moving to Gu Ri is not subject to any other circumstances, such as where it is difficult to use means of public transportation compared to the moving to and leaving the city within Seoul Metropolitan City area, and his spouse is also obliged to move to Gu Ri Ri, in light of the purport of the relevant laws and regulations, in light of the purport of the relevant laws and regulations, it is reasonable to view that the above apartment house's moving to Gu Ri city is not subject to any other taxation on the ground that the whole household is under any circumstances under Article 6 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1905).

[1] Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see Article 89 subparagraph 3 of the current Income Tax Act), Article 15 (1) 3 (see Article 154 (1) 3 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 6 (4) 1 (see Article 154 (1) 3 of the current Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 195) / [2] Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 15 (1) 3 (see Article 15 (1) 4 (former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1515 subparagraph 43 (see Article 15)

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Nu12988 delivered on January 19, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 763) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5713 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2690), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu125 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2667), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu670 delivered on December 26, 195 (Gong196Sang, 612)

10 10

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu6877 delivered on October 16, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff transferred the apartment house of this case to the non-party 1, 1989, the time when the plaintiff worked in Samsung Nam-dong, Seoul, 516, 806 (hereinafter "the apartment house of this case"), and that the plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case to the Gu Ri, 12 February 12, 1992, and the non-party 1, the plaintiff's wife, who was on leave of absence, was also reinstated as the teacher at the Guri-si, and all of the plaintiff's family members were living in the Guri-si. However, on April 23 of the same year, the plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case to the non-party 1, 1995, since it was inevitable for the plaintiff to move the apartment house of this case to the non-party 5,000,0000 won belonging to 192,574,960, and 5,000,000.

Article 15 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1467 of Dec. 31, 1994) provides that "any inevitable reason prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy exists" shall be one of the cases where one household is exempt from the transfer income tax without being subject to the restriction of the residence period, and Article 6 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "any inevitable reason prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy exists" shall be one of the cases where any inevitable reason prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act exists", "if all households move out to another Si/Eup/Myeon due to the entrance into school, medical treatment of diseases, or circumstances of work or business, and thereby it is impossible to reside in the relevant address or residence for three years or more due to the reason that no income tax is imposed on the income accruing from the transfer of one house for one household constitutes the basis of a citizen's residential life, and thus, it may not be deemed that one household transfers a house in Korea with the intention to secure residential stability of 198 weeks.

However, even according to the records of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff and the beneficiary who are the plaintiff and the beneficiary move to and depart from a passenger car, and rather, the fact that the apartment house of this case passes through the boundary of Seoul Metropolitan City and goes to and leaves from the old city is likely to be difficult to move to and depart from the old city because it is not easy to use means of public transportation compared to the moving to and leaving the city within the Seoul Metropolitan City area, and there is a situation that the above beneficiary should move to and depart from the old city. In light of the purport of related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to view that the reason why all the households move to the old city to the old city corresponds to the "where all the households move to another city" under Article 6 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act in light of the purport of related Acts and subordinate statutes.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the transfer of apartment in this case does not constitute one house for one household subject to non-taxation on the ground that there is no inevitable reason as prescribed by the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and that the transfer of apartment in this case does not constitute one house for one household under the Income Tax Act, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to one house for one household

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)