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

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or the whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence 1, 5-9, and evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2.

A. On October 15, 1986, the Plaintiff acquired the same 00-0 square meters and 9,815 square meters and 4 other than the same 00-0 square meters and 00-0 square meters and 1,248 square meters (the same 00 square meters as November 24, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the “instant land before the merger”).

B. On October 10, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred each of the above land on the grounds of a consultation on the land for public use at Sungnam-si, and reported and paid KRW 356,880,010 of the corporate tax on the capital gains from non-business use.

C. On July 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the Defendant for refund of KRW 356,880,010 of the above corporate tax paid by asserting that each of the above land does not constitute non-business land.

D. On July 23, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that forest land of KRW 9,815 square meters is excluded from the land for non-business use; and (b) refunded corporate tax of KRW 217,941,330 for the transferred portion; and (c) refused to refund corporate tax of KRW 138,938,670 for the transferred portion by deeming that the instant land is the land for non-business use (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on October 21, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on June 3, 201.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In determining non-business land pursuant to Article 92-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the land in this case is only the land on the public register only, and the actual use of the land becomes naturally "forest like neighboring land as the Plaintiff did not use it for a long time after its acquisition," or "land other than farmland, forest land, and stock farm land" under Article 55-2 (2) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act. Since the land in this case is located within a development restriction zone, it does not constitute non-business land pursuant to Article 5-2 (2) 2 (a) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 92-6 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and the land in this case does not fall under the non-business land under separate aggregate or separate taxation of the property tax under Article 55-2 (2) 4 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the disposition in this case is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

As to whether the actual status of the land in this case was "forest land" or "farmland, forest land and stock farm land" at the time the Plaintiff transferred the land in this case, it is insufficient to recognize it only with the images of evidence No. 14-3, and evidence No. 15. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of fact inquiry into a corporation AA Evaluation Corporation and BB Evaluation Corporation, a corporation AAA Evaluation Corporation and BB Evaluation Corporation were incorporated into "Road Works" at Sungnam-si around 2007, it can be recognized that the actual status of the land in this case was assessed as no forest land before it was not a forest land. Accordingly, the actual status of the land in this case at the time the Plaintiff transferred the land in this case was a land for non-business purposes under Article 55-2 (2) 1 (a) of the Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is justified.

3. Conclusion

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