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

A. On May 20, 191, the Plaintiff acquired 1/3 shares of 00 ○○○○-dong, 00 00 m2, 2962 m2.1 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) (On the other hand, KimA and YB acquired 1/3 shares of each of the instant land on the same day, and thisA acquired 1/3 shares of 1/3 shares of the instant land due to the death of YB, and thisA acquired 1/3 shares of the instant land on January 4, 2006).

B. Since then, the Plaintiff, etc. leased the instant land as a temporary building site; from August 31, 201 to July 31, 2011; from August 2, 201 to August 19, 2013; and from November 21, 201 to November 24, 2015, a model house was installed for the instant land.

C. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff sold 1/3 shares out of the instant land to ○○ Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Holdings”) in KRW 3,285,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 13, 2016 (around that time, the Plaintiff sold 1/3 shares out of each of the instant land to ○○○ Holdings, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 13, 2016).

D. Meanwhile, where the transferred land falls under “non-business land” under Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13796, Jan. 19, 2016; hereinafter referred to as “former Income Tax Act”), special deduction for long-term possession is restricted in calculating capital gains pursuant to Article 95(4) of the former Income Tax Act, and the aggravated tax rate is applied pursuant to Article 104(1)8 of the former Income Tax Act.

E. Also, according to Article 104-3(1)4(b) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-6(1)1(a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27506, Sep. 22, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”), if the period of ownership of land is at least five years, and if the period of ownership is at least three years, during the five years immediately preceding the transfer date, falls under the “land subject to separate taxation of property tax” under Article 106(1)2 of the Local Tax Act, the land for non-business use is not

F. Of the land of this case 2962.1 square meters, the Plaintiff deemed 2294.45 square meters of the land of this case as falling under the land subject to separate taxation of property tax for at least three years in accordance with the said provision, and the remaining 667.65 square meters of the land shall be deemed as “land subject to separate taxation of property tax,” and on the basis of the said provision, the Plaintiff calculated capital gains tax on the transfer of 1/3 of the land of this case as KRW 877,059,15

G. However, on October 10, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the entire land of the instant case constitutes land for non-business use for the following reasons, and rendered an additional disposition imposing KRW 589,702,726 of the capital gains tax on the portion of 1/3 of the instant land to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) According to Article 104-3 (1) 4 (b) of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 168-6 subparagraph 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, a land subject to separate taxation of property tax under Article 106 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act for at least three years between five years and five years immediately before the transfer date.

In the case of Korea, it is stipulated that the land for business falls under the land for business, and the plaintiff applied the above provision to the land for business.

2) Pursuant to Article 106(1)2(a) of the Local Tax Act and Article 101(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the period during which a model house was installed on the instant land.

Land subject to separate aggregate taxation is subject to separate aggregate taxation.

3) However, in calculating from September 13, 201, when the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to ○○ Holdings, the period during which a model house was installed on the instant land from September 13, 201 (from September 13, 2011 to August 19, 2013; and from January 21, 2015 to November 24, 2015; and 284, from January 21, 2015 to November 24, 2015). Thus, the instant land does not meet the above three-year requirements.

4) In addition, given that there are no other circumstances to regard the instant land as land for business, the instant land constitutes land for non-business use.

H. On December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for a tax trial on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 29, 2018.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 10 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the proviso of Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the period of land ownership shall be calculated as "number of days", and the defendant calculated the period corresponding to the land subject to separate taxation of property tax as 1014 days according to the above provision.

However, according to Article 104-3 (1) 4 (b) of the former Income Tax Act, "land subject to separate taxation of property tax under the Local Tax Act" shall be excluded from land subject to separate taxation of property tax under the Local Tax Act, and since the Local Tax Act provides that land subject to separate taxation of property tax shall be calculated on a yearly basis, the calculation of the period under Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be made on an annual basis. Therefore, the provision that the calculation of the period shall be made by the number of days in accordance with the proviso

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant land was determined as the land subject to separate taxation of property tax in the year 2012, 2013, and 2015 under the Local Tax Act, it shall be deemed that it constitutes the land subject to separate taxation of property tax for at least three years in applying Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree

4. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the proviso of Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes that the land ownership period shall be calculated by the number of days, is legitimate and effective, and therefore, the disposition of this case based on the above provision is also legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted

1) According to Article 104-3(1) of the former Income Tax Act, “for the period determined by the Presidential Decree”

The land falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed land for non-business use, and the detailed details of the calculation of the period shall be delegated to Presidential Decree.

2) According to the delegation above, Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is the standard for calculating specific periods.

B, while setting forth the proviso, the calculation of the period is to be made by the number of days.

3) The Plaintiff’s property under the Local Tax Act under Article 104-3(1)4 (b) of the former Income Tax Act

The Local Tax Act stipulates that "land subject to tax aggregate taxation" shall be seen as land for business, and the land subject to property tax aggregate taxation under the Local Tax Act shall be calculated on an annual basis. Therefore, in applying the above provision, the period shall be calculated on an annual basis.

However, property tax under the Local Tax Act shall be based on June 1 of each year (Article 114 of the Local Tax Act), which is the tax base date.

Since property tax is imposed once a year, it is only determined on a one-year basis (Article 106 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act) based on the tax base date, and it is not necessarily necessary to calculate the relevant period of land subject to separate aggregate taxation on a one-year basis in determining whether land is land for non-business under the former Income Tax Act, and the former Income Tax Act can determine the method of calculating the relevant period in accordance with its own criteria.

Separate aggregate of property tax under the Local Tax Act pursuant to Article 104-3 (1) 4 (b) of the former Income Tax Act;

The purpose of Article 12 of the Local Tax Act is to determine whether the land subject to taxation is the land subject to business according to the requirement of the land subject to separate taxation of property tax (land annexed to a building, tea-employment land, etc.) under the Local Tax Act.

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that deeming the instant land as the non-business land for which the period of ownership was longer than the period of ownership of the instant land was unreasonable, in the calculation of capital gains tax, in the case of EA, which was a co-owner of the instant land.

ThisA, however, Article 104-3 (1) 4 (b) of the former Income Tax Act; Enforcement Decree of the former Income Tax Act

For the reason that not less than 60/100 of the ownership period of the pertinent land was used as the land subject to special aggregate taxation of property tax pursuant to subparagraph 1 (c) of Article 168-6, the transfer income tax is calculated only on the ground that the instant land was used as the land for business (No. 10-1 and No. 2), and there is no particular reason to give preferential treatment to the owners, the ownership period of which is longer, as alleged by the

5. Conclusion

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