Whether one house for one household is exempt from taxation;

Since the apartment was acquired for the purpose of moving the house before transferring the apartment, but six months have elapsed, it does not constitute non-taxation for one house for one household.

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 the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 2, 6, 7, evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2, and evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-1, 6, and 1-2.

가. 원고는 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 지상 ㅇㅇ프라자아파트 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ호 134.09제곱미터(이하 이 사건 아파트라 한다)를 1985. 11. 12. 매수 (1987. 5. 15. 원고 앞으로 소유권이전 등기를 마쳤다)하여 같은해 12. 7. 경부터 거주하다가 1992. 5. 25. 소외 이ㅇㅇ에게 양도하고 같은해 6. 18 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 주었다.

나. 원고는 1973. 1. 22. 서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 소재 주택을 취득하여 소유하다가 1991. 1. 17. 멸실 처리하고 같은 해 5. 4. 그 대지와 같은 동 ㅇㅇ번지,ㅇㅇ번지의 지상에 철근콘크리트조 벽돌조 슬래브지붕 5층 근린생활시설 및 주택(이 중 4층 112.11제곱미터와 5층 76.32제곱미터는 주택이고 지층과 1,2층은 소매점이다, 이하 이 사건 주택이라 한다)의 건축허가를 받아 공사를 진행하여 같은 해 12. 19. 준공을 하였으며, 1992. 6. 23. 이 사건 주택으로의 전입신고를 하고 같은 날부터 그곳에서 거주하여 왔다

C. Accordingly, on January 3, 1995, the Defendant owned the instant apartment in addition to the above apartment at the time of the transfer by the Plaintiff, and thus, the transfer of the instant apartment does not constitute a transfer of one house for one household, thereby imposing capital gains tax of KRW 47,937,490 on the Plaintiff and notifying the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant disposition of imposition).

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff newly built and acquired the house of this case for the purpose of moving the house of this case for the purpose of moving the house of this case and transferred the apartment of this case which is the previous house within six months from the acquisition date of the house of this case, the transfer of the apartment of this case should be exempted from taxation because it falls under the requirements for transferring the house of one household under Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act, the defendant

(b) Related statutes;

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (i) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019, Dec. 26, 1988; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that no income tax shall be imposed on income accruing from a transfer of one house for one household and land attached thereto prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 15 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 1988) provides that "one house for one household" under subparagraph 6 (i) of Article 5 of the Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12509, Aug. 25, 1988) shall be imposed on the resident and his spouse who own house in the same address or same place of residence, and where the resident proves that he/she is one house for one household under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, he/she shall not be subject to the restriction on the period of residence if he/she acquires the house in the Republic of Korea for the purpose of transferring the house to another household (including the new house).

C. Determination

In light of the above provisions, Article 6(1) of the above Rule provides that even if two houses are temporarily owned by one household, the purpose of acquiring another house is to not impose income tax on the income accruing from the transfer if the former house is transferred within a certain period from the date of acquiring another house. Thus, (1) A person who acquired another house for the purpose of moving a house to another house actually moves into such another house within the period prescribed by Article 6(1) of the above Rule, (2) during the same period from the date of acquiring the other house, and (3) at the time of acquiring another house, the former house must meet the non-taxation requirement of one house for one household (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu9817, Mar. 10, 1992; 94Nu7911, Mar. 10, 1995).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff newly built and acquired the house of this case for the purpose of moving the apartment of this case before transferring the apartment of this case, and it is evident that the plaintiff transferred the apartment of this case which is the previous house within six months from the date of acquiring the house of this case. However, the fact that the plaintiff newly built the house of this case and moved the house of this case to the house of this case from December 19, 191 to June 23, 1992 when six months have passed since the above provision was stipulated in the above rule, as seen above, the transfer of the apartment of this case does not meet the requirements for transferring the house of one household under Article 6 (1) of the above rule. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.