혼인 및 동거봉양에 대한 과세제도의 문제점 연구 = A Study on the Tax system for the temporary two-house possession in the case of the marriage or Living with and supporting their parents

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study focused on the contradiction between taxing temperary two-house posession in the case of the marriage or living with and supporting their parents and the each taxing system for husband and wife or the value of the constitution such as the equality of both sexes, the prohibition principle of the excess or retroactive law taxing and so on. Therefore, this monograph supports the tax exemption for temporary two-house possession in the case of the marriage or living with and supporting their parents. Temporary two-house possession due to the marriage of living with and supporting their arents is not closely relative to the speculation for the property increase. So, it is not reasonable to levy tax on this possession. However, Two-house possession due to the inheritance is considered the same case of these. It is not reasonable also to limit cases and conditions. While each individual property should be controlled, used and earned according to the each taxing system for husband and wife in the civil law, the right of property possession ought to be approved to the holder of a title deed in spite of the contribution of a married couple. Taxing each household according to the marriage, that is, is contradictory to the exclusion of tax exemption. It is reasonable to tax each not household but person according to each-taxing system for husband and wife. Each-person-taxing system principle as the each-taxing system for husband and wife was decided unconstitutional. It was applied to the general taxation of the financial profits and the comprehensive real estate taxes. In addition, tax system for the temporary two-house possession in the case of the marriage or living with and supporting their parents is contradictory. The reason to tax the temporary two-house possession in the case of the marriage or living with and supporting their parents according to the equality of both sexes married is just for the moral duty to keep taxation law in order. However, it is really difficult to find out the balance between public and personal profits and not to be approved. Because, it violates the prohibition principle of the excess on the constitution. It violates the prohibition principle of the retroactive lawmaking taxation, because there was no duty to pay taxes: to tax for the temporary two-house possession in the case of the marriage or living with and supporting their parents is caused by retroactive lawmaking. To sell additional house to avoid the taxation of possessing two houses could violate the right to own property.