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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on 00.00.00 is revoked.

A. On or around August 17, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1/2 shares of 00 ○○○-dong, Seoul, 000 ○○○○-dong (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on or around August 17, 201 with respect to the instant land due to a consultation on land purchase under Article 47 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) around October 00, 200.

B. On the other hand, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor around October 00, 000 designated a lot of land of this case as a park site (○○ Green Park).

C. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000,000,000 to the Defendant, which was calculated on the premise that the instant land is land for non-business use.

D. On October 00, 000, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction to the effect that the instant land was excluded from the land for non-business use, applying the special deduction for long-term holding and the reduction and exemption provisions under Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, thereby reducing the transfer income tax to KRW 00,000,000.

E. Accordingly, on October 00, 000, the defendant issued a disposition rejecting the above request for a holiday (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case") on the ground that the land transferred in the form of purchase by claim to the State does not exist any concept of the public announcement of the project approval, and thus it cannot be viewed as the land excluded from the non-business land purchased by consultation or expropriated pursuant to the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Compensation Act") and other Acts.

F. The plaintiff appealed against the disposition of this case and filed an appeal on around 00.00.00, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal on around 00.00.00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 16, 17 evidence, Eul 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land in this case is a land acquired through consultation by Seoul Special Metropolitan City as a public site by filing a claim for purchase pursuant to Article 47 of the National Land Planning Act for a long-term undeveloped urban planning facility (park). In addition, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act provides that Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Compensation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope of land owned by an absentee real estate owner pursuant to Article 47 (2) 2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act. In this case, the "business authorization" in this case shall be deemed to be the "land purchase authorization date". In this case, if there is no business authorization as in this case, the "business authorization date" in Article 168-14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be construed as the "land for non-business use". Therefore, the land in this case shall be deemed to be subject to special deduction for long-term possession, and the transfer income tax reduction or exemption under Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to Articles 95 and 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012; hereinafter the same) and Article 168-14(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24356, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same), land purchased by consultation or expropriated pursuant to the Land Compensation Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes shall be deemed land purchased by consultation or expropriated before December 31, 2006, or land acquired by five years prior to the date of public announcement of project approval is deemed land subject to special deduction for long-term holding in accordance with the prescribed additional requirements because it is not deemed land for non-business use, and land subject to special deduction for land acquisition by two years prior to the date of public project approval, which is subject to the transfer of income generated between the parties to the relevant public project and the transfer of income generated from the transfer of the land (the transfer of income generated from two years before the public project approval date).

Therefore, in case where a project of urban planning facilities is not implemented for a long period like the land in this case and the land which is the site of the urban planning facilities is transferred in the form of purchase through a request for purchase under the National Land Planning Act, it is a matter of whether Article 168-14(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act can be excluded from the non-business land by applying or analogical application of Article 168-14(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act as the date of application for purchase

2) In light of the principle of no taxation without the law, or the requirement of tax exemption or exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without the reasonable reason. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret that the provision of tax exemption or exemption is clearly preferential (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu20090, Mar. 27, 1998).

(4) Article 168-14 (3) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 77 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provide that if the owner of the land which is the site of urban planning facilities because the project of urban planning facilities has not been implemented for a long time pursuant to Article 47 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 10599, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) transfers such land to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor by means of purchase request, the provisions of Article 168-14 (3) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 77 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are not satisfied, and the provisions of Article 77 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which are no longer applicable to the transfer of land within the scope of the land to be purchased under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful on the same premise, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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