2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s transfer income tax of 100,705,760 won in 2012 against Plaintiff’s best rooftop on October 1, 2014

Ministry of Justice 104,393,940 won of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2012 against the disposition of imposition and the plaintiff's personal injury

Each disposition shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiffs, as a legal couple on April 28, 2004, acquired the ownership of one half of each of the instant land out of 153-21 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs transferred one half of each of the instant land to third parties on May 30, 2012.

B. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the ground that the Defendant had self-fluenced one half of each of the instant land for eight years, respectively.

C. On October 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax for the year 2012 for each of the above claims (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiffs on the ground that the instant land did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable farmland for which three years have elapsed since it was incorporated into a residential area at the time of transfer.

D. The Plaintiffs filed a tax appeal on December 23, 2014, but were dismissed on May 15, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the instant land is farmland incorporated into a residential area due to the implementation of a development project, and the delay or delay in compensation for the said development project is due to the reasons attributable to OO, a project implementer (or a project implementer who fails to select a project implementer and prepare an implementation plan), the Plaintiffs met the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland due to the transfer of the instant land. The instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "The capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on any income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among farmland, the residents living at the seat of farmland for at least eight years."

Article 66 (4) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368 of Feb. 15, 2013) and Article 27 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that "The cases where a project operator is deemed liable to delay the project or compensation as farmland incorporated into a residential area, commercial area or industrial area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act due to the implementation of a development project within a development project area determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which is the State, a local government, or a public institution, and a public institution, for at least eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, excluding farmland located within a residential area, commercial area, or industrial area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as of the date of transfer."

B. Determination

(1) In full view of the above-mentioned facts and evidence Nos. 3-4 and evidence Nos. 5, the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) the land of this case can be acknowledged that it was incorporated into a Class-II general residential area under Articles 29 and 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act by the "OO urban management planning (financial expenses), modified decision and notification of topographic drawings" publicly announced by the O market as of December 1, 2008; and (b) the fact that three years have passed since the date of incorporation into a residential area is apparent in calculation.

(2) On the other hand, we examine whether the incorporation of the instant land into a residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act is attributable to the implementation of the development project within the development project area, which is the State, local government, or public institution prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and whether the project or compensation is delayed due to the reasons attributable to O, the project implementer.

Articles 3, 4, 11 and 17 of the Urban Development Act provide that "a person entitled to designate an urban development zone shall designate an urban development zone, and a person entitled to designate an urban development zone shall establish a plan for an urban development project for the relevant urban development zone in order to designate an urban development zone, and a person entitled to designate an implementer of an urban development project shall prepare an implementation plan for an urban development project. In this case, an implementation plan shall include a district unit plan." Thus, an urban development project shall be implemented upon the designation of an urban development zone by the person entitled to designate." Thus, "Incorporation into a residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act as a result of the implementation of an urban development project within a development project zone is designated under the Urban Development Act and an implementation plan for an

In this case, since the facts of recognition under the above paragraph (1) and evidence Nos. 3-5, 6, 7, 10, 6, 7 Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of fact inquiry by this court on March 17, 2016, the land in this case was incorporated into a residential area on December 1, 2008, and the O City Planning Committee was not established as a Class 2 general residential area under the Urban Development Act, and it was not established as a Class 1 urban development project after 00, 100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 200, 100, 200, 200, 10,000, 10,000,000, 20,000,000,000,00

(3) Ultimately, since the instant land is farmland located in a residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and for which three years have passed since it was incorporated into such area, it is excluded from the subject of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the instant disposition by the Defendant premised thereon is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

September 30, 2016