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

A. On November 17, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 189.8 square meters of the same 000 square meters to KRW 000; and (b) on January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land falls under “one parcel of land owned by one household that does not own a house” pursuant to Article 168-11 subparag. 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is “one parcel of land owned by one household that does not own a house”; (c) applied the special long-term holding deduction, and (d) reported and paid the transfer income tax of KRW 000,000 after deducting KRW 00 from the transfer margin.

B. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant, and “one parcel” referred to in Article 168-11 subparag. 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, mean land that does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 12 of the same Article, and is not used for any purpose. The instant land is used for the purpose of parking lot operation as of the date of transfer, and it does not fall under the land for business, and does not fall under the land for business, and excludes special long-term holding deduction, and issued the instant disposition that corrected and notified KRW 000 to the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax of 201.

C. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on the instant disposition, but November 27, 2012

was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Entry of Al No Evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On the instant land, the Plaintiff operated an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, and the amount of annual income for one year of land value falls short of 3/100 prescribed in Article 83-4(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, thereby running the parking lot under Article 168-11(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Since land for business use does not fall under "land for business use", it should be viewed as "one parcel owned by one household which does not own a house" as stipulated in Article 168-11 (1) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is not used for any purpose. However, the defendant, although the land of this case is not a land for the business of operating a parking lot, has been used for a parking lot when interpreting subparagraph 13 even though it is not a land for the business of operating a parking lot, and is thus unlawful.

B. In addition, the reason for heavy taxation of capital gains tax by excluding special long-term holding deduction for non-business land is to induce land to be used as a productive error according to the actual demand, and the reason for deeming one parcel of land owned by one household which does not own a house as a land for business purposes is to remedy the exclusion from the land for business because the land of one parcel of land that can be newly constructed is not a land for a house, and the land of one parcel of land owned by a non-resident is completely left unproductively neglected, or a free public parking lot owned by a non-business owner is operated, and the lease is excluded from the land for non-business purposes, while the lease is made with a small amount of less than 3% of the land for non-business purposes, if a parking lot is operated with a revenue of less than 3% of the land for non-business purposes, it is judged relatively produced as the land for non-business purposes or the same parking lot for which business feasibility has not been recognized, and thus, the disposition

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Facts of recognition;

At the time of the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff operated an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, and the amount of income for one year of land value does not reach 3/100 provided for in Article 83-4(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, there is no dispute between the parties.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff’s operation of a parking lot less than 3% of the land value in the instant land constitutes “land meeting the criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance by taking into account whether it is possible to newly construct a house as one parcel of land (referring to land which does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 12, and is not used for any purpose) owned by one household which does not own a house” under Article 168-11 subparag. 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

2) Under the principle of no taxation without the law, or under the principle of no taxation without the law, the interpretation of the tax law shall be interpreted in accordance with the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. Furthermore, Article 168-11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 83-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act are individually listed on the grounds for exception excluded from non-business land. Therefore, if the land in this case does not fall under the grounds for exception under the above provision,

3) Based on these legal principles, Article 104-3 (1) 4 (c) of the Income Tax Act explicitly provides that the land for non-business use is "land which has considerable reasons to believe that it is directly related to the residence or business", and the detailed contents are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the land which has considerable reasons to recognize that it is directly related to the "business" in the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides for a certain scale of the land which is directly related to the "resident" in Article 168-11 (11) 13, and the land which has considerable reasons to recognize that it is directly related to the "resident" in Article 168-11 (1) 13, and the new construction of the house referred to in subparagraph 13 is in mind, and it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and it does not fall under the category of land which does not fall under the category of "non-business use" nor does it fall under the category 1 (1).

4) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without merit.