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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of KRW 85,450,310 ("85,450,300, respectively" in the purport of the claim and appeal of the appeal of the complaint") for the plaintiff on September 6, 2007 shall be revoked.

A. On November 17, 1995, the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor and the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor shall conclude the autopsy urban planning agreement with the public notice No. 1995-218 of Incheon Metropolitan City on November 17, 1995

According to this, the gold ○○○-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 382,050 square meters, Ma○-dong, 50 square meters, 637,630 square meters, and 63,020 square meters, respectively, were determined as urban planning districts where a land readjustment project will be implemented.

B. In addition, on June 12, 1998, the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor publicly announced “the determination of a regional plan (the alteration)” under Article 198-18 of the Public Notice of ○○ City as of June 12, 1998. Accordingly, the said three district was abolished, and the land readjustment project district was newly established in M○○ District (623,000 square meters), O○ District (697,000 square meters), O○ District (697,000 square meters), O○ District (815,000 square meters), O○○-dong (951,000 square meters), which was owned by the Plaintiff in the said non-O○ District, was established as an urban planning district, and the land readjustment project district was established in the same area as 45 square meters, 410-9, 227 square meters, 410-423 square meters, 456-1652, 4656-465 square meters prior to 465.

C. On March 31, 200, the Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor issued a notice No. 200-104 on March 31, 2000, with respect to the area 1 of the inspection team, No. 2000-105 as to the area 2 of the inspection team. On January 29, 2001, the Seoul Metropolitan City public notice No. 2001-49 of the Incheon Metropolitan City public notice No. 2001-20 on January 29, 2001, each land readjustment project was approved for the area ○, original, non-○, and Ma○. The detailed contents of each

D. On October 16, 2002, the land in this case, etc. was designated and publicly announced as land substitution plan, reserved land for replotting, and reserved land for replotting for the street zone to which the land in this case belongs.

E. On November 13, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land 458-6 large scale 165 square meters to Samcheon-gu Co., Ltd. on the same date, and on March 12, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land to the Defendant on the grounds that the instant land was farmland, the land was self-sufficient for not less than eight years, and thus, it was subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under

F. On September 6, 2007, the defendant was transferred to the plaintiff on September 6, 200, and on June 12, 1998, the land of this case was transferred to a residential area.

On November 13, 2002, which was transferred on November 13, 2002 and last three years or more, the transfer income tax on self-owned farmland was not reduced or exempted, and on the ground that the appraisal value of an appraisal corporation, other than the officially assessed individual land price of the previous land, was calculated by calculating the transfer value of the appraisal value of the previous land by the transfer value (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

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

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The land in this case constitutes "farmland subject to the land substitution disposition" under Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002; hereinafter "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), as farmland subject to the land substitution disposition under the Land Substitution Readjustment Project Act, and Article 66 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17829 of Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree of the same Act"), if a land other than the land substitution disposition was designated as a land subject to the land substitution disposition prior to the land substitution disposition, it constitutes "farmland for which three years have not elapsed since the date of the land substitution designation" and thus, it is unlawful for the defendant to deny the reduction and exemption of the capital gains tax and make the instant disposition.

(2) It is unlawful to impose capital gains tax after calculating the amount of the taxable market price of the instant land as KRW 273,342,497 according to the appraisal by an appraiser, rather than based on the provisional grade newly established following the designation of the land scheduled for substitution.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

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

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the proviso of Article 66(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where there exists a fact that farmland has been cultivated for at least eight years between the time of acquisition of farmland and the time of transfer, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted, but even in the case of farmland cultivated for at least eight years, "farmland for which three years have elapsed from the date of incorporation 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 as of the date of transfer, which is located in a residential area, etc. under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, is excluded from capital gains tax reduction or exemption: Provided, That "farmland for which three years have elapsed from the date of incorporation into a residential area, etc. under the same Act, among farmland located in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si, shall be excluded from capital gains tax reduction or exemption."

In full view of the purport of the argument in the present case, the land of this case is located in the Metropolitan City at the time of the transfer date, and three years have already elapsed since it was incorporated into the residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the land of this case is merely 273 persons and is merely 273 persons, and its project execution area is less than 385,197 square meters, and it can be recognized that the land of this case is less than one million square meters. According to these facts, even if it is acknowledged that the land of this case was cultivated by itself for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition by the Plaintiff, it does not constitute farmland subject to reduction and exemption from capital gains tax, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the land in this case does not fall under the category of the land subject to reduction or exemption since it does not fall under the category of the "farmland subject to reduction or exemption" in the case of designating the land other than the land subject to planned substitution prior to the disposition of land substitution under Article 66 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, in light of the fact that Article 66 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the land under the Presidential Decree of Article 69 (1) of the same Act refers to the land which he cultivated for not less than 8 years from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer, excluding the land falling under any of the following subparagraphs", the land in this case does not fall under any category of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article, and on the other hand, the land in this case falls under Article 66 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is one mother, but there is no reason to view it.

(2) Determination as to whether the computation of the market price standard is unlawful

Article 96 (1) and Article 99 (1) 1 (a) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6781 of Dec. 18, 2002) and Article 96 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1785 of Dec. 30, 2002) provide that the standard market price at the time of acquisition or transfer shall not be the basis of the previous land in order to calculate capital gains (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8734, Jun. 24, 1997). In light of the above evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff had not determined and publicly announced the officially assessed land price of the instant land as at the time of transfer of the instant land, and thus, it is not legitimate for the Plaintiff to newly calculate the land price of the instant land as at the time of the provisional land substitution project to the extent that the sale price is determined by the parallel of the previous land substitution area.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.