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

가. 원고는 2007. 6. 29. 소외 ○○○종합개발 주식회사에게 원고 소유의 춘천시 @@면 @@리 산 234 임야 4,364㎡(이하 '이 사건 임야'라고 한다)를 1억 1,000만 원에 매도한 후, 2007. 7. 12. 피고에게 양도소득세 1,383만 원을 신고・납부하였다.

B. On February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant to rectify the tax base of capital gains tax as KRW 76,083,560 (2,141,415) and the tax amount as KRW 13,830,806 (13,830,806) as KRW 0,00,00,000,000,000,000,000 won as income from the transfer of the forest of this case.

C. Accordingly, on April 2, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “In the event that the Plaintiff transfers the forest land to the Plaintiff along with the forest land, it is applied to calculating the amount of income of the “business cutting down or transferring the forest land” as it applies to the case of calculating the amount of income of the “business cutting down or transferring the forest land.” In the event that the Plaintiff does not engage in such business, there is no room for applying the above Enforcement Decree provision regarding the transfer of the forest land in this case.”

D. On June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 25, 2009, but the decision of dismissal was rendered on August 3, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap L/4 Evidence

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

General Rule 23-1 of the Income Tax Act provides that "income accrued from the cutting or transfer of trees naturally generated without separate planting, shall be deemed business income regardless of the growth period of the forest." Thus, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is the person who carries on the business of cutting down or transferring the forest trees, the part of "income accrued from the transfer of trees naturally generated from the transfer of forest trees" among income generated from the transfer of the forest land in this case shall be deemed business income, and it is contrary to the basic rules of the Income Tax Act, deeming that this does not constitute business income contrary to the general rules of the said Income Tax Act is contrary to the principles of administrative trust protection or the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Business income is income generated from a specific business and refers to social activities that are continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes. For business income to be recognized as business income, independence, profit-making nature, and continuity and happiness must be ensured. According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and the main text of Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the "income generated from the transfer of forest trees" is determined depending on whether the transfer was performed as part of the business. However, in calculating the amount of income of the "business felling or transferring forest trees", it is clear that the purport of the "business income from the transfer of forest land" is that if the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land, income from the transfer of the forest shall not be included in the amount of income.

(2) In addition, the general rules of the National Tax Service's basic rules are merely an administrative rule that issued the criteria for interpretation and enforcement of tax-related Acts within the tax authority, and do not have the effect of binding the court or the people, and the above basic rules have been implemented for a long time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu7580, Dec. 22, 1992; 2005Du5611, Feb. 8, 2007). In addition, the basic rules of the Income Tax Act 23-1, which the Plaintiff asserted, separates and imposed "forest income" and "business income that is subject to global income tax" under Article 23 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006), and it cannot be deemed that it was generated as an example of transfer of forest income, regardless of whether it was generated as a result of a natural transfer of business.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is derived from misunderstanding the nature and purport of the provisions of the General Rules of the Income Tax Act, and as part of the Plaintiff’s “business cutting down or transferring forest trees”, insofar as it does not transfer the forest land of this case and the forest trees on its ground (this point is without dispute in light of the purport of the claim by the original and the Defendant), it is not reasonable to examine other points without any need to do so.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.