Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Residence period counted inside the holding period for a one-house deduction
Supreme Court, Jan. 15, 2026, 2025Du34935 (judgment)
Case name: 양도소득세부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the 'residence period' set by Article 95(2) proviso and Table 2 of the former Income Tax Act mean the period the transferor resided in the house during the holding period from its acquisition to its transfer, and does that hold even where the house was acquired by inheritance?
Holding
It does, and the answer is the same for an inherited house. Under Article 159-4 of the Enforcement Decree, the residence period needed for the residence-based long-term holding special deduction must fall within the holding period running from the day the transferor acquired the house to the day the transferor sold it; the wording makes that clear on its own, and the purpose of adding the residence requirement while setting separately higher deduction rates for a one-house prescribed by Presidential Decree points the same way. Because the period is defined by reference to the holding period, a shorter residence by the heir after the inheritance opened does not count, whatever the decedent's earlier residence was.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서 및 같은 항 단서 표 2에서 정하는 ‘거주기간’은 양도자가 양도자산인 주택의 취득일부터 양도일까지의 보유기간 중 해당 주택에서 거주한 기간을 의미하고, 이는 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지라고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The 'period of residence' prescribed in the proviso to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act and in Table 2 of the proviso to the same paragraph means the period during which the transferor resided in the housing constituting the transferred asset, among the holding period from the date of acquisition of the housing to the date of transfer, and the same must be regarded as applying even where the cause of acquisition of the housing is inheritance.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 소득세법 시행령 제159조의4에 의하면 구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서에 따라 거주기간에 따른 장기보유 특별공제를 받기 위해서는 양도자가 1세대 1주택에 거주한 기간이 양도자가 해당 주택을 취득한 날부터 양도한 날까지의 보유기간 중에 속해야 한다는 점이 문언 자체로 분명할뿐더러
Unofficial English translation
Under Article 159-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, in order to receive the special deduction for long-term holding according to the period of residence under the proviso to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, it is clear from the text itself that the period during which the transferor resided in the one household and one housing must fall within the holding period from the date on which the transferor acquired the housing to the date on which the transferor transferred it, and, moreover,
Factors
- 구 소득세법 시행령 제159조의4에 의하면
- 거주기간에 따른 장기보유 특별공제를 받기 위해서는 양도자가 1세대 1주택에 거주한 기간이 양도자가 해당 주택을 취득한 날부터 양도한 날까지의 보유기간 중에 속해야 한다는 점이 문언 자체로 분명할뿐더러
- ‘대통령령으로 정하는 1세대 1주택’에 대하여 별도로 더 높은 비율의 장기보유 특별공제율을 정하면서 거주요건을 추가한 개정 취지 등을 종합적으로 고려하면
- 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지라고 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Under Article 159-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act,
• it is clear from the text itself that, in order to receive the special deduction for long-term holding according to the period of residence, the period during which the transferor resided in the one household and one housing must fall within the holding period from the date on which the transferor acquired the housing to the date on which the transferor transferred it, and, moreover,
• if one comprehensively considers the purport of the amendment, which, while separately prescribing a higher rate of special deduction for long-term holding for 'the one household and one housing prescribed by Presidential Decree,' added a residence requirement,
• the same must be regarded as applying even where the cause of acquisition of the housing is inheritance
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Would the residence period be defined in the same way where the house was acquired by gift rather than by inheritance?
An amendment to Article 159-4 of the Enforcement Decree that allows pre-acquisition residence to count, or a later decision giving effect to a taxpayer's reliance on a decedent's earlier residence, would require this entry to be read again. A change to the acquisition date of an inherited asset in Article 162(1)(v) of the Enforcement Decree would move the starting point of the measured period.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 2 (holding), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 2 (Holding): Primary “It does, and the answer is the same for an inherited house. Under Article 159-4 of the Enforcement Decree, the residence period needed for the residence-based long-term holding special deduction must fall within the holding period running from the day the transferor acquired the house to the day the transferor sold it; the wording makes that clear on its own, and the purpose of adding the residence requirement while setting separately higher deduction rates for a one-house prescribed by Presidential Decree points the same way. Because the period is defined by reference to the holding period, a shorter residence by the heir after the inheritance opened does not count, whatever the decedent's earlier residence was.” vs Independent “The qualifying residence period includes only residence during the transferor's ownership, from acquisition to transfer. This rule also applies when the home was acquired by inheritance, excluding residence before acquisition.”
Both state the ownership-period rule, but the primary's English answer additionally says short post-inheritance residence does not count, whereas the independent includes residence during ownership without that exclusion.
구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서 및 같은 항 단서 표 2에서 정하는 ‘거주기간’은 양도자가 양도자산인 주택의 취득일부터 양도일까지의 보유기간 중 해당 주택에서 거주한 기간을 의미하고, 이는 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지라고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Would the residence period be defined in the same way where the house was acquired by gift rather than by inheritance?” vs Independent “How should qualifying residence be established when actual occupancy during the ownership period is disputed?”
The primary asks whether the rule also applies to gifts, whereas the independent asks how disputed actual residence should be established.
구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서 및 같은 항 단서 표 2에서 정하는 ‘거주기간’은 양도자가 양도자산인 주택의 취득일부터 양도일까지의 보유기간 중 해당 주택에서 거주한 기간을 의미하고, 이는 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지라고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 14 August 2025 (2024Nu61591), held that the plaintiff lived in the house for only one month after acquiring it by inheritance, so the residence-period deduction rate under Article 95(2) proviso and Table 2 did not apply. It rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the residence of the decedent, who had been in the same household (one generation) as the plaintiff before the inheritance opened, and the plaintiff's own residence had to be aggregated under Article 154(8)(iii) of the Enforcement Decree, that the plaintiff's expectation of the deduction had to be protected, and that the unavoidable inability to live there because of district unit plans and caring for parents had to be reflected in the calculation.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below was right. Article 159-4 of the Enforcement Decree makes it clear on the wording itself that the residence period must fall within the holding period from the day the house was acquired to the day it was transferred, and the purpose of adding the residence requirement while setting higher rates for a one-house prescribed by Presidential Decree points the same way, equally where the house was inherited. It found no error in law on the requirements for the special deduction or on the principle of protection of trust, and no failure to examine what needed examining, so the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the transferor actually resided in the house for two years or more between the acquisition date and the transfer date, so that the residence requirement is met without counting anything earlier.
- A house that is not a one-house prescribed by Presidential Decree, for which the higher rates in Table 2 and the added residence requirement do not reach.
- A period of the long-term holding special deduction governed by Article 159-3 of the Enforcement Decree as it stood before the 23 October 2018 amendment, which required only that the household owned the house at the time of the transfer.
Record verification notes
Fix the version of Article 159-4, or of Article 159-3 before it, that governed the transfer, since the residence requirement was added by the 2018 amendment and the article was moved in 2021. Then measure the residence between the acquisition date, which for an inherited house is the date the inheritance opened under Article 162(1)(v) of the Enforcement Decree, and the transfer date. Note that the Court stated the meaning of the period and rejected the trust-protection argument without setting out any allowance for unavoidable non-residence.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서 및 같은 항 단서 표 2에서 정하는 ‘거주기간’의 의미(=양도자가 양도자산인 주택의 취득일부터 양도일까지의 보유기간 중 해당 주택에서 거주한 기간) 및 이는 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of the 'period of residence' prescribed in the proviso to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act and in Table 2 of the proviso to the same paragraph (= the period during which the transferor resided in the housing constituting the transferred asset, among the holding period from the date of acquisition of the housing to the date of transfer), and whether the same applies even where the cause of acquisition of the housing is inheritance (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 소득세법(2023. 12. 31. 법률 제19933호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제94조 제1항 제1호, 제95조 제1항, 제2항, 제4항, 제98조, 구 소득세법 시행령(2018. 10. 23. 대통령령 제29242호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제159조의3, 구 소득세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31442호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제159조의3, 구 소득세법 시행령(2024. 2. 29. 대통령령 제34265호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제159조의4, 제162조 제1항 제5호의 내용 및 체계, 특히 구 소득세법 시행령 제159조의4에 의하면 구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서에 따라 거주기간에 따른 장기보유 특별공제를 받기 위해서는 양도자가 1세대 1주택에 거주한 기간이 양도자가 해당 주택을 취득한 날부터 양도한 날까지의 보유기간 중에 속해야 한다는 점이 문언 자체로 분명할뿐더러, ‘대통령령으로 정하는 1세대 1주택’에 대하여 별도로 더 높은 비율의 장기보유 특별공제율을 정하면서 거주요건을 추가한 개정 취지 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 구 소득세법 제95조 제2항 단서 및 같은 항 단서 표 2에서 정하는 ‘거주기간’은 양도자가 양도자산인 주택의 취득일부터 양도일까지의 보유기간 중 해당 주택에서 거주한 기간을 의미하고, 이는 주택의 취득원인이 상속인 경우에도 마찬가지라고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
구 소득세법(2023. 12. 31. 법률 제19933호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제94조 제1항 제1호, 제95조 제1항, 제2항, 제4항, 제98조, 구 소득세법 시행령(2018. 10. 23. 대통령령 제29242호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제159조의3(현행 제159조의4 참조), 구 소득세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31442호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제159조의3(현행 제159조의4 참조), 구 소득세법 시행령(2024. 2. 29. 대통령령 제34265호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제159조의4, 제162조 제1항 제5호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger