1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired Seo-gu Seo-gu apartment C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and reported and paid KRW 22,840,159 of the capital gains tax for the year 2016 after transferring the apartment on February 29, 2016.

B. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the Defendant for refund of the entire transfer income tax on the premise that the exemption from taxation of one house for one household is applicable on the ground that a house on the ground that the Plaintiff’s land E (hereinafter “house on the ground of return to farming”) owned by the Plaintiff’s spouse constituted a house on the grounds that the said house constitutes a house on the grounds of return to farming under Article 155(7)3 and (10) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

C. However, on September 27, 2016, the Defendant rejected the above request for correction based on Article 155(10)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s farmland and the owner of one house, respectively, do not correspond to the requirements for non-taxation of one house for one household.

On December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office, but was dismissed on January 11, 2017. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 19, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse constitute a special case of non-taxation on one house for one household by transferring the instant apartment house after having moved in the house of return to the same household under Article 155(7)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. In light of the purport of the provision of the special case of non-taxation on one house for one household with respect to the house of return to the same household, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse should not be deemed to fall under the requirements of the house of return to the same household under Article 155(10)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act even in cases where the owner