Standard for the period of non-business land under Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

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

A. On April 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed 9,512 square meters of O00 O0,000 mal. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”). On November 8, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant forest to the Defendant on January 11, 2008, and reported and paid the instant forest to the Defendant as the land for non-business use, and the transfer income tax of 291,607,560 mal. reverted to the year 2007.

B. After that, on September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of capital gains tax with the Defendant on the ground that “the instant forest is not land for non-business use,” and that “the instant forest is deemed land for non-business use, and thus, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of capital gains tax to refund KRW 144,750,470.” However, on December 3, 2010, the Defendant rejected the said application for rectification on the ground that “the instant forest constitutes land for non-business use” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The provisions on land for non-business under the Income Tax Act (Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) was amended on December 31, 2005, but the starting date of the period of the non-business land under the above provisions shall be January 1, 2007, the enforcement date of the above provisions, and the plaintiff transferred the forest of this case before the lapse of one year from January 1, 2007. The forest of this case does not fall under the non-business land. Accordingly, the disposition of this case reported differently from the land of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221 of Mar. 31, 2010) provides that "non-business land" means land falling under any of the following subparagraphs for the period prescribed by Presidential Decree during the period of possession of the relevant land, and Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009) provides that "period of non-business land" shall be "period of non-business land". Meanwhile, the above provision on land is newly established after the amendment of the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on Dec. 31, 2005 and its enforcement date shall be January 1, 2007. In light of the form, content, purport, etc. of the above amendment provision, it shall not be deemed that the above provision on non-business land goes against the enforcement date of the above provision on non-business period after the enforcement date of the above provision on non-business land.

3. Conclusion

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