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

(a) Details of the disposition;

(1) On October 10, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred 1,132.796 square meters and 172.934 square meters and 405-3 square meters and 172.934 square meters and 2007, respectively (hereinafter “instant land”) to BB-Gun as public land, and paid capital gains tax by scheduled return on December 31, 2007.

(2) On February 22, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land is not land for non-business use under Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 168-14(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21062, Oct. 7, 2008; hereinafter the same). The Plaintiff claimed that the transfer income tax shall be reduced to 132,378,870 won and the difference shall be refunded.

(3) Accordingly, on June 13, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the instant land constitutes non-business land.

B. Progress of the facility modernization project for the land in this case by the BB group

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts (hereinafter referred to as the "General Market Act"), BB group has carried out the facility modernization project of conventional markets in relation to the land in this case in order to revitalize the business district by supporting the improvement of old facilities, commercialization, marketing activities and management innovation enterprises of conventional markets and shopping districts in accordance with Article 20 of the "Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts", and (1) submitted to Gyeonggi-do the budget bill for the facility modernization project on April 12, 2006

(2) On October 11, 2006, Gyeonggi-do has compiled a budget for facility modernization projects in BB-gun.

(3) On November 21, 2006, BB group on November 21, 2006 publicly announced that the land of this case will be purchased in order to create a site for the market facility modernization project on the BB regular five days

(4) On December 26, 2006, the B Military Council approved and publicly announced the public property management plan (decision to purchase the land of this case)

(5) On April 26, 2007, whether the Plaintiff had the intent to sell the prospective site to be incorporated into the facility modernization project to the Plaintiff

(6) Purchase by consultation of the land of this case by BB on October 10, 207

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties’ assertion and the issues of the instant case

(1) The Plaintiff: In a case where a negotiation is made for a facility modernization project as stipulated in Article 20 of the Traditional Market Act, the customary market law constitutes the “other Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed in the issue,” and at the latest, in order to implement the BB regular market facility modernization project on December 26, 2006, the date of approval of the public property management plan and the date of public announcement should be regarded as the public property management plan approval. Therefore, the instant land purchased by consultation pursuant to the customary market Act and the date of public announcement of the project approval before December 31, 2006 does not constitute the land for non-business under the statutes. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the instant land is non-business land is illegal.

(2) The defendant: The customary market law applies only to the case of purchase by consultation for a market improvement project as prescribed by the customary market law, and it does not fall under the case of purchase by consultation for a facility modernization project. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful.

(3) Key issue: In a case where negotiation is made for a facility modernization project as stipulated in the customary market law, whether the customary market law constitutes “other Acts as stipulated in the law of the issue.”

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The key issue is that the land publicly announced prior to December 31, 2006 is not deemed land for non-business if it is purchased by consultation or expropriated. Here, the project approval has the nature of administrative disposition giving a certain right to expropriate under the condition that it should go through a certain procedure thereafter, and the scope of the object to be expropriated is determined by obtaining the project approval and the right to expropriate may be set up against the present and future right holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4889, Dec. 5, 195). Considering the legal nature and validity of the project approval and the main purpose of the law is to improve the unreasonable point of taxation even when the land for non-business is transferred inevitably, unlike the market improvement project, the facility modernization project does not stipulate the procedure of compulsory expropriation in cases where the land for non-business is not purchased by consultation, it is reasonable to deem that the purchase can not occur in cases where the right to expropriate can not be purchased by consultation under the premise of the project approval.

(2) Therefore, even if a negotiation was made for a facility modernization project stipulated in the customary market law, the facility modernization project is not premised on the project approval, so it shall not be included in the consultation as referred to in the Act and subordinate statutes, unlike the market improvement project (the plaintiff asserts that the land in this case is the land for public business acquired by the BB for a facility modernization project under the customary market law, and thus it does not constitute the non-business land under the main law; however, it is irrelevant to whether the land purchased by consultation falls under the main law and is not the land for non-business use, and thus, the above argument is not accepted).

3. Conclusion

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