주택에 대한 종합부동산세 과세와 헌법 제36조 제1항

The comprehensive real estate tax (hereinafter referred to as “CRET”) tax notice for 2021 was served on individual taxpayers at the end of November 2021. Taxpayers who received tax bills were surprised by the amount of tax paid. Many media outlets have reported taxpayers' resentment against CRET. A number of taxpayers have filed lawsuits against the imposition of CRET. In these lawsuits, taxpayers are arguing over the constitutionality dispute rather than arguing over the interpretation of individual regulations. The constitutionality of the Act of CRET is being argued on several issues. Among these debates over the unconstitutionality of the tax, this article intends to deal only with whether the taxation of CRET on housing violates Article 36 (1) of the Constitution of the State's duty to protect marriage and family. In recent years, the Act of CRET has expanded reductions and exemptions for single-family homes and significantly strengthened taxation for more than two-family homes. As a result, there is a phenomenon that the tax burden varies considerably depending on whether or not a person is married and has a family and the number of houses. Married taxpayers make up one household, and unmarried people basically each constitute an independent household. As a result, if two people own two or more houses, the tax burden may be greater if the two people are married than if they are not married. For this reason, there is an argument that the current taxation of CRET on housing violates Article 36 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.This article explains the background of the appearance of these unconstitutional claims on the basis of cases and summarizes the arguments for the unconstitutionality theory and the arguments for the constitutionality theory. n conclusion, this article has expressed the position that the current taxation of CRET on housing does not violate Article 36 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.