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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on February 23, 2012 shall be revoked.

A. On January 20, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred 3,195/3,00 of 00 OO-dong O-dong O-dong 79-6 3,195 square meters to the Korea Land Corporation (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 19, 209, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax in relation to the transfer of the instant land on December 27, 2011, and on December 27, 2011, the Defendant corrected the tax base and tax amount on the ground that Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) should be applied, and returned the OO of the capital gains tax already reported and paid.

B. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that “The instant land was already incorporated into a residential area on June 27, 2005 and transferred three years after being incorporated into a residential area, prior to the implementation of a large-scale development project,” and that it does not meet the requirements for exemption from capital gains tax on self-arable land under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 28, 2012.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, and described in Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful and thus should be revoked for the following reasons.

1) Since the transfer of the instant land after three years from the date of incorporation into a residential area is due to the cause attributable to the Korea Land Corporation, which is the developer of the development project, the approval of the development plan was delayed due to the cause attributable to the Korea Land Corporation, the developer of the development project. In such a case, notwithstanding the application of the capital gains tax reduction provision on self-arable farmland under Article 66(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of

2) In light of the fact that Article 12(2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act provides that the designation and announcement of a planned project area shall be seen as the announcement of the project approval if the designation and announcement of the planned project area are made, it shall be deemed as the date of incorporation into a residential area due to the implementation of the development project on July 21, 2006, which is the date of the designation of the scheduled project area of this case, the Defendant

3) Since Article 66(4)1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on February 15, 2013 stipulated that capital gains tax reduction and exemption regulations for self-employed farmland shall apply even if the incorporation of a residential area is carried out irrespective of a large-scale development project, the Defendant, in accordance with the purport above, applied the provision on capital gains tax reduction and exemption for self-employed farmland to the Plaintiff, on a different premise.

4) Although the incorporation of the instant land into a residential area was invalidated on June 28, 2008 pursuant to Article 53(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and was deemed to have been re-incorporated on August 5, 2008, which was the date of the instant project approval notice, pursuant to Article 53(1) of the same Act, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Pursuant to Article 30 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8564, Jul. 27, 2007; hereinafter the same) on June 27, 2005, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do determined and publicly announced an O-Gu O-dong O-dong O-dong team, where the instant land is located, from a development restriction zone, and determined and publicly announced as a Class I general residential zone within the natural green area.

2) On July 21, 2006, pursuant to Articles 3 and 7 of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8384 of Apr. 20, 2007), the Minister of Construction and Transportation designated and publicly announced 6,768,00 square meters including O-gu O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong, where the instant land is located as D housing site development area.

3) On August 5, 2008, the Minister of Construction and Transportation approved and publicly notified the development plan for a housing site with the content that the name of the planned housing site development area was changed from D intended housing site development area to EE housing site development area, and the size of the planned housing site development area was changed to 6,768,000 square meters from 6,78,331 square meters.

Records of Gap evidence 4 through 6, Gap evidence 8, and Eul evidence 1

D. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of equity in taxation to strictly interpret that the provision of tax reduction and exemption is clearly preferential (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statutes, taking into account the following circumstances, which can see the facts recognized and the purport of the entire argument.

① On June 27, 2005, prior to the implementation of the housing site development project, the land of this case does not constitute “farmland included in a residential area as a result of the implementation of the development project” under the items of Article 66(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565, Jun. 26, 2009). Thus, regardless of whether the approval of the development plan has been delayed due to a cause attributable to the Korea Land Corporation, the said provision on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable land cannot be applied.

② Article 12(2) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 10764, May 30, 201) does not mean that, when a project district is designated and publicly notified, it shall be deemed that the approval of the project is publicly notified, and shall not be construed to mean that the designation and public notice date of the planned housing site development district shall be deemed as the date of incorporation into a residential area due to the implementation

③ Article 66(4)1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended on February 15, 2013 is not yet effective at the time of the Defendant’s disposition.

④ The incorporation of the instant land into a residential area was not invalidated on June 28, 2008 pursuant to the main sentence of Article 53(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.