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

A. The Plaintiff, along with 5 persons, including BB, acquired the O00 00 00 m2,150 m2 and 11,942 m2 m2 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) at Kimpo-si, Seoul-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “the instant forest”), and transferred the said 00 m2 at 000 m2 to Kimpo-F on July 20, 2009, while transferring the said m20 m2 to the GG system on the same day.

B. On September 29, 2009, pursuant to Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the income from the transfer of land among the income from the transfer of forest land of this case shall be deemed capital gains, and the income from the transfer of the forest forest of this case shall be deemed capital gains, and KRW 000 as capital gains tax, and the income from the transfer of the forest of this case shall be deemed business income, and KRW 000 as capital income tax (business income tax) was reported and paid accordingly.

C. On March 1, 2011, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to correct and notify the transfer income tax for the year 2009 to the Plaintiff by deeming that the instant forest was included in the instant forest land and transferred as temporary transactions without feasibility, and that the instant forest trees were not included in the instant forest land and were transferred.

D. Accordingly, on June 3, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition, but was dismissed on October 25, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 26, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap 3 through 6, and 15 (including household numbers), and the purpose of the entire pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The plaintiff had been planted before acquiring the forest land in this case, and after the plaintiff acquired the forest land in this case, the plaintiff continued to conduct afforestation and growing projects for forest trees, such as the plaintiff's fatherB and LeeCC's work, and continuing forest conservation activities. The forest land in this case has also been transferred along with the forest land in this case. The Korean Standard Industrial Classification Table, which Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act uses with respect to the scope of the forest land in this case, provides that the forest in this case is "salvling, cultivating, protecting, and protecting the forest in the forest in order to produce the forest in this case" among the forest land in forestry, the determination of feasibility based on the land activity in this case is consistent with the interpretation of the relevant provisions, such as Article 19 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and whether business income is subject to taxation should be determined by whether it satisfies the requirements for feasibility assessment or business income, and the determination of business registration can not be the criteria for business feasibility judgment, and the transfer of the forest in this case and other part of the income in this case is illegal.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff did not engage in growing forest trees in the instant forest land, and the instant forest land and the instant forest are traded for separate sales purposes (However, it is not possible for the Plaintiff to impose capital gains tax on the instant forest trees, which are recognized as the object of independent trade, including the transfer value of forest land (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu352, Sept. 10, 1985), and on a different premise, the instant disposition by the Defendant is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The plaintiff's arguments in paragraphs (1) and (2) are examined together.

(1) Article 94(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9763, Jun. 9, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that income generated from the transfer of land or a building shall be capital gains, and Article 19(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that income generated from agriculture and a forestry shall be business income. On the other hand, Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for the calculation method by total amount of income in calculating business income generated from the operation of a forestry. In full view of the forms and purposes of these provisions, for the forest trees that are separated from land and are not subject to separate taxation pursuant to Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it is reasonable to view that the transfer of forest trees falls under the forestry and business, and if not, income from the transfer of forest trees shall also be included in the income from the transfer of land.

(2) We examine the instant case in accordance with such legal doctrine.

(A) If Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2-4 were combined with the overall purport of the pleadings, and ① the plaintiff sold forest trees and facilities for settlement in the transfer of the forest of this case into the subject of sale without distinguishing the transfer value of the forest from the transfer value of the forest in the transfer of the forest of this case, and ② The forest sales contract of this case does not include all the matters concerning the forest trees (number, rights, etc.) except the content that "the above 00 forest land among the forest of this case includes the forest of this case", and ③ The GG system of the corporation that purchased the above 00 forest land of this case is found to have purchased the forest land for the purpose of constructing a new factory, and the non-permanent fact that the plaintiff did not have registered its business as to the forestry, and that the plaintiff did not have any registration under the laws on the forest of this case or did not have any method of marking.

(B) According to the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the forest trees of this case were separate from the land, and the forest trees of this case were transferred not in the course of performing the forestry business but in the course of transferring the forest land of this case, and it is reasonable to view that the forest trees of this case were transferred together with the constituent parts of the forest land of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in growing business, and the entire purchase price of this case is deemed to be the transfer price of the forest of this case, and as alleged by the plaintiff, it cannot be viewed that the transfer price of the forest of this case included the transfer price of the forest of this case as well as the forest of this case, but the transfer price of the forest of this case cannot be separated. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on the premise that the entire purchase price of this case is income from the transfer of forest of

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.