Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

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

(a) Determination of inspection, division, urban planning, land readjustment project, etc.;

(1) The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City publicly announced the Incheon Metropolitan City’s decision on the inspection team under the former Urban Planning Act on November 17, 1995 under Article 195-218 of the Incheon Metropolitan City’s notification. According to this, the head of Incheon Metropolitan City determined that the ○○○-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City’s 283,050 square meters, 050 square meters, 000 square meters, 000 square meters, 637,630 square meters, and 63,020 square meters, which are 1,2, and 3 square meters, respectively, as an urban planning district where a land readjustment project is to be implemented.

(2) The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, on June 12, 1998, publicly announced the decision on a regional urban planning (revision) by the Incheon Metropolitan City Notice No. 1998-118 of Jun. 12, 1998. Accordingly, the said three districts were abolished, and the land readjustment zone was newly established as an urban planning district with regard to ○○ Electric District (623,000 square meters), 00 square meters (697,000 square meters), 00 square meters (387,000 square meters), 00 square meters (815,000 square meters), 00 square meters (951,000 square meters).

(3) In accordance with the delegation by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the former Land Readjustment Project Act, the head of Incheon Metropolitan City shall implement a land readjustment project on March 31, 200 with respect to the area 1 district of the Inspection Group No. 2000-104 of the Incheon Metropolitan City announced on March 31, 200, and with respect to the area 2 district of the Inspection Group No. 2000-105 of the Incheon Metropolitan City announced on January 29, 2001 as Incheon Metropolitan City announced on January 29, 2001. The detailed contents of each district readjustment project are as follows.

(4) However, on December 31, 1993, the urban planning was determined in accordance with the Urban Planning Act, and as regards the ○ waterway zone in which the instant land belongs, the land was determined by the land readjustment project district on June 12, 1998 and included in the residential area under the Urban Planning Act, and the land substitution plan was designated and publicly announced as well as the land substitution plan for the ○○ zone on October 16, 2002.

B. Details of the transfer, etc. of the instant land and imposition of capital gains tax

(1) On November 13, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred 458-O 165 square meters (the total area of rights 962.98 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the same 458-O 165 square meters (the total area of rights 962.98 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 458-O 165 square meters (the land of this case) of the same 458-O 165 square meters (the total area of rights 962.98 square meters; hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Defendant on March 12, 2003, on the ground that the land of this case is 165 square meters (the area of rights 95 square meters) and 458-O 165 square meters (the area of rights 95 square meters) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Plaintiff transferred it to the Defendant on March 12, 2003.

(2) Accordingly, on September 6, 2007, the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff on November 13, 2002 at the time when three or more years elapsed since it was incorporated into a residential area on June 12, 1998; and (b) was not subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland for not less than eight years; and (c) since the instant land constitutes a land without a publicly assessed individual land price as a planned land substitution, the instant land constitutes a land without a publicly assessed individual land price, and thus, was subject to imposition and notification of capital gains tax of KRW 87,450,310,00, which is not a publicly assessed individual land price of the previous

(3) The Plaintiff appealed and raised an objection on October 16, 2007, but was dismissed on November 16, 2007. The Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2008, but was dismissed on June 23, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 12 evidence, Eul 1 to 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant land constitutes farmland subject to a disposition of replotting under Article 69 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Tax Restriction as farmland subject to a disposition of replotting under the Land Readjustment Projects Act, and since Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act has not elapsed three years since it constitutes farmland, other than farmland, which was designated as reserved land prior to the disposition of replotting, the Defendant’s disposition of this case by denying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, since it falls

In addition, the author argues that the transfer income tax should be revoked because it is illegal to calculate the tax base of the land of this case by determining the transfer income tax amount as KRW 273,342,497 according to the appraisal of the appraiser, not based on the appraisal class newly established after the designation of

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion that capital gains tax are reduced or exempted

According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003 of Dec. 30, 2003) and Article 66(3)1 proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18207 of Dec. 30, 2003), where farmland has been cultivated for not less than 8 years between the time of acquisition of farmland and the time of transfer, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted; however, in the case of farmland cultivated for not less than 8 years, it shall be excluded from capital gains tax reduction or exemption. However, in the case of farmland cultivated for not less than 8 years, it shall be farmland incorporated into a residential area, etc. under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act among farmland located in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si, and for which 3 years have elapsed from the date of transfer, such large-scale development project area (referring to a single project execution area, the project approval date of which is more than 1 million square meters) as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

In this case, according to the above, the land in this case is located in a Metropolitan City as of the date of transfer, and three years have passed since it was incorporated into a residential area as farmland under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and farmland subject to exceptional reduction or exemption related to a large-scale development project area shall be located in the large-scale development project area (referring to a single project execution area with the same project approval area), such as the project execution area exceeding the size (1 million square meters), as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and (2) three years have passed from the date of incorporation due to the project implementation or the delay in compensation by the project operator. The above seven district land rearrangement projects cannot be deemed to be one identical project execution area, and the project execution area with the land in this case shall be deemed to be a separate project implementation area by each project district, and there is no counter-proof proof that the project execution area in this case is less than 385.197 square meters and thus, it is difficult to deem that the land in this case is an exception farmland subject to reduction or exemption provisions related to a large development project area.

Therefore, even if the land of this case was cultivated by itself for at least eight years from the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition to the time of transfer, it is not subject to capital gains tax reduction or exemption, so the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

The plaintiff asserts that the land in this case is subject to reduction or exemption since it does not fall under the "farmland which has been three years since the date of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution" in Article 66 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, Article 69 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the "land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means the land which has been cultivated by himself for not less than eight years (five years in case of transfer to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Corporation Act or to the corporation under paragraph (2)) from the time of its acquisition until the time of its transfer (five years in case of transfer to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation under the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the assessment of the tax base is unlawful

The standard market price at the time of acquisition or transfer of a parcel of land is not based on the previous parcel of land, but on the basis of the land substitution in order to calculate capital gains as much as the location and reputation of the previous parcel of land is not subject to consideration, and the sale price is to be determined in accordance with the common sense. As seen earlier, as long as the individual land price of the land substitution in this case at the time of transfer of the instant parcel of land was not determined and publicly announced, the Defendant’s calculation of the standard market price by taking into account the appraisal institution’s appraisal value of the instant parcel of land substitution is lawful in light of the relevant laws and regulations, so the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.