The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively taking account of each description of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-11, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 4-2.

"가. 원고들은 1985. 5. 15. 전ㅇㅇ로부터 별지목록 제1~제8 기재 각 토지를 공동으로 취득하였다가 1995. 8. 31. ㅇㅇ개발주식회사에 이를 양도하였고, 원고 김ㅇㅇ은 1985. 6. 5. ㅇㅇ건설주식회사로부터 별지목록 제9~제11 기재 각 토지를 취득하였다가 역시 1995. 8. 31. ㅇㅇ개발주식회사에 이를 양도하였다. 그 뒤 원고들은 각자 양도소득세 신고를 하면서 별지목록 기재 각 토지(이하이 사건 토지들'이라 한다)가 모두 장기보유특별공제대상인 것으로 하여 양도소득금액을 계산하였고 이에 따라 양도소득세로 원고 김ㅇㅇ은 금 1,038,133,654원, 원고 이ㅇㅇ은 금 853,885,120원을 각 자진납부였다.", "나. 피고 ㅇㅇ세무서장은 처음에는 이 사건 토지들이 모두 장기보유특별공제대상인 것으로 보고 양도소득금액을 계산하였고 그에 따라 산출된 총결정세액 금 1,039,900,391원에서 원고 김ㅇㅇ이 자진납부한 금 1,038,133,654원을 뺀 금 1,766,737원(이하제1차 부과액'이라 한다)을 원고 김ㅇㅇ에게 부과하였다. 그러나 그 뒤 피고 ㅇㅇ세무서장은 이 사건 토지들이 모두 나대지로서 장기보유특별공제대상이 되지 않는다는 이유로 세액을 증액하기로 결정한 뒤 그에 따라 산출된 총결정세액 금 1,852,751,689원에서 자진납부액과 이미 납부한 제1차 부과액을 뺀 금 812,851,298원(이하제2차 부과액'이라 한다)을 1996. 11. 16.자로 원고 김ㅇㅇ에게 추가로 부과하였다. 그랬다가 피고 ㅇㅇ세무서장은 다시 이 사건 토지들 중 별지목록 제2・4・7・9・10 기재 각 토지는 도로로서 장기보유특별공제대상이 된다고 보고 세액을 감액하기로 결정한 뒤 그에 따라 산출된 총결정세액 금 1,786,106,934원에서 자진납부액과 이미 납부한 제1차 부과액을 뺀 금 746,497,440원(10원 미만 버림)을 납부하도록 원고 김ㅇㅇ에게 고지하였다(이하 1996. 11. 16.자 부과처분 중 위와 같이 감액되고 남은 부분을원고 김ㅇㅇ에 대한 이 사건 부과처분'이라 한다).", "다. 한편, 피고 ㅇㅇ세무서장은 처음에는 이 사건 토지들이 모두 장기보유특별공제대상이 아닌 것으로 보고 양도소득금액을 계산하였고 그에 따라 산출된 총결정세액 금 1,629,935,769원에서 원고 이ㅇㅇ이 자진납부한 금 853,882,120원을 뺀 금 776,050,649원을 1996. 11. 16.자로 원고 이ㅇㅇ에게 부과하였다. 그랬다가 피고 ㅇㅇ세무서장은 다시 이 사건 토지들 중 별지목록 제2・4・7 기재 각 토지는 도로로서 장기보유특별공제대상이 된다고 보고 세액을 감액하기로 결정한 뒤 그에 따라 산출된 총결정세액 금 1,469,655,701원에서 자진납부액을 뺀 금 615,770,580원(10원 미만 버림)을 납부하도록 원고 이ㅇㅇ에게 고지하였다(이하 1996. 11. 16.자 부과처분 중 위와 같이 감액되고 남은 부분을원고 이ㅇㅇ에 대한 이 사건 부과처분'이라 한다).",2. 이 사건 부과처분의 적법 여부

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, first, the legal basis of the disposition of this case is the legal basis of the disposition of this case, Article 23 (2) and 2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 161 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860 of Dec. 30, 195), Article 8 (1) 13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, Article 20 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, and Article 95 (2) of the above Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act cited by Article 161 of the above Enforcement Decree of the above Act concerning the preliminary return of profit from the transfer of assets. Thus, the disposition of this case does not have a subordinate law to determine the scope of tax liability, and there is no ground for taxation, and second, Article 161 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act does not apply to the special deduction of land form and quality.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 23(2) of the former Income Tax Act (before the full amendment by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994)

The transfer income amount shall be the amount calculated by deducting again the amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs in sequential order from the amount obtained by deducting the necessary expenses under Article 45 (hereinafter referred to as “transfer marginal profits”) from the total gross income accruing from the transfer of the relevant assets (hereinafter referred to as “transfer value”):

2. For assets (excluding the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) under paragraph (1) 1, the holding period of which is not less than five years, the amount calculated according to the following classification (hereinafter referred to as the amount of the special long-term holding deduction):

【Omission】

Article 161 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14860 of Dec. 30, 1995)

"Land prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 95 (2) of the Act means a site (including where an unauthorized building as prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister is built) and - - [Intermediate omission]: Provided, That this shall not include any land which does not fall under idle land, etc. (in cases where it is impossible to ascertain whether it falls under idle land as of the date of transfer, it shall be based on the end of the immediately preceding year) pursuant to Article 8 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act as of the date of transfer, and Article 8 (1) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994).

Land owned by an individual which is subject to taxation of land excess profit tax, shall be the land falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

heading 1 to 12, 14 [Omission]

13. Land used for a lease (excluding the land as prescribed by the Presidential Decree): Provided, That the land on which a building is settled, and which does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 4, shall be excluded;

Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14470, Dec. 31, 1994)

The term "lease" in Article 8 (1) 13 of the Act means to allow another person to use the land according to a lease contract, etc. (including a case of allowing another person to use the land according to a lease on a deposit basis or a contract to establish superficies), regardless of whether it is paid or free of charge.

(1) Judgment on the first argument of the plaintiffs

Article 161 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which was wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860 of December 31, 1994, enters into force from January 1, 1995, and the Income Tax Act, which was completely amended by Act No. 4803 of December 22, 1994, enters into force from January 1, 1996. Article 95 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which provides special deduction for long-term holding, refers to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, which enters into force from January 1, 1996, Article 161 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, provides that Article 25 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, which provides for special deduction for long-term holding, shall be deemed as "Article 95 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act, which provides the first ground for the plaintiffs' assertion that the above revised provisions of Article 161 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, which is reasonable to be deemed as 20 (3) of the first.

In full view of the provisions of the above-mentioned related Acts and subordinate statutes, even if a parcel of land was owned for a long time as prescribed by the Income Tax Act, if such land falls under idle land such as leased land, it shall not be subject to the special long-term holding deduction. In this context, the "bal site" refers to the land in which a building is substantially able to be constructed as a land regardless of its land category on the public cadastral book, and whether it falls under

이 사건에서 살피건대, 갑제1・2호증의 각 1~2, 을제5호증의 1~11, 을제6호증의 1~8, 을제7호증의 1~2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 토지들 중 별지목록 제1・3・5・6・8・11 토지들은 공부상 지목은 전 또는 답이나 평탄한 토지로서 사실상 농지로 이용되지 않고 있었고 관할구청의 1995년도 토지특성조사결과에서도 나대지로 조사된 사실, 위 토지들은 모두 ㅇㅇ시 도시계획구역안의 일반주거지역에 속하는 토지인데 그중 별지목록 제1・3・5・6・11 토지들은 토지의 형상을 변경하지 않고 건축물을 건축하는데 법률상 장애사유가 없고, 별지목록 제8토지는 도시계획시설(운동장)로 결정・고시된 토지이나 사업시행자 지정을 받는다면 토지의 형상을 변경하지 않고 운동장등 건축물을 건축하는데 법률상 장애가 없는 사실, 원고들은 1994. 12. 20. 이 사건 토지들을 연 임대료 3천만원에 태영개발주식회사에게 임대한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, among the land in this case, land Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 of the attached Table among the land in this case is a idle land, which is defined as the land excluded from the special long-term holding deduction, and was leased to another person at that time. Thus, the disposition of this case, which is based on the amount of no special long-term holding deduction for the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

September 30, 1998