1세대 1주택 양도소득세 비과세 제도의 구조적 한계와 재설계 방향

1세대 1주택 양도소득세 비과세제도의 한계와 재설계 방향을 연구했다.

The one-house ownership capital gains tax exemption was introduced in 1975 alongside the establishment of the capital gains tax, grounded in constitutional and policy imperatives to guarantee residential stability and freedom of movement. However, decades of repeated amendments and the accumulation of special provisions have created a significant gap between the system and its original legislative purpose.

This study aims to identify the structural limitations of the current system and to explore directions for its redesign through examination of the Income Tax Act, comparative analysis of housing capital gains tax regimes in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, and critical review of existing literature. The analysis reveals four principal structural limitations. First, the exemption requirements are designed around ownership rather than residence, and the dual-track structure under which the residency requirement applies only in designated adjustment areas produces divergent tax outcomes for transfers of equivalent residential purpose depending solely on property location.

Second, the full exemption structure produces a regressive outcome in which larger gains yield greater tax savings, undermining both horizontal and vertical tax equity. Third, the absence of a filing obligation makes it difficult for tax authorities to detect and control unlawful exploitation of the exemption. Fourth, frequent amendments and accumulated special provisions have made the system excessively complex, significantly reducing taxpayers' ability to predict their tax obligations. To address these limitations, this study proposes the following directions for redesign.

First, the two-year residency requirement currently applicable only in designated adjustment areas should be extended nationwide. Unavoidable periods of non-residence arising from job relocation, children’s education, or medical treatment should be credited toward the residency period, subject to taxpayer substantiation and category-specific limits, and a multi-layered verification system drawing on administrative data should be established to address sham registrations. Second, the system should transition from a full exemption to an income deduction approach under which a fixed monetary amount is deducted.

The deduction ceiling should be set between 300 and 500 million Korean won, informed by comparative analysis and regional housing price disparities. The deduction should be available once every two years, with strict enforcement of the residency requirement as the primary safeguard against abuse. The introduction of an income deduction system would enable effective filing obligations and provide a basis for treating mortgage interest as a deductible expense. Simplification of the statutory structure and careful design of transitional provisions should also be pursued to enhance taxpayer predictability.

This study approaches the issue not merely as a matter of adjusting specific requirements, but as a question of how housing should be positioned within the broader tax system.