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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 8,191,100 against the Plaintiff on March 21, 2016 is revoked.

(a) Acquisition and transfer of land;

1) The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of KRW 27,00,000 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 00 square meters for 10,000 in the voluntary auction procedure on October 00, 2001, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on October 0, 2001.

2) On October 0, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land in KRW 117,000,000, and on October 0, 2014, the Plaintiff scheduled and paid KRW 928,000 capital gains tax to the Defendant by applying the special deduction for long-term holding at KRW 25,00,000 to the transfer of the instant land (hereinafter “the ownership period of this case”).

B. The defendant's disposition

The Defendant deemed the instant land as the land for non-business use under Article 104-3(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12852, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) and excluded the application of special deduction for long-term holding, thereby notifying the Plaintiff of KRW 8,00,000,000 for capital gains tax on October 0, 2016 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

(c) Procedures of the previous trial;

The Plaintiff filed an objection on October 00, 2016 with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition on October 00, 2016, but was dismissed on October 0, 2016.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, after acquiring the instant land on October 00, 201, used it as a camping site from around October 201 to around October 2014, 201, cultivated crops, such as bean, bean, bean, and a shoulder, from the instant land to around October 2014. However, this ought to be deemed that the instant land continues to be miscellaneous pursuant to Article 2 of the Farmland Act due to temporary cultivation and Article 2 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25917, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since the instant land was used as a camping site for at least two years immediately before the date of transfer, and its land category is not subject to the application of Article 104-3 (1) 4 (c) of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 168 (1) 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26067, Feb. 3, 2015). 7).

2) The defendant's assertion

The land category of this case ought to be deemed farmland according to the current status in the public register until October 00, 2012, and from October 0, 2013, according to the actual status. However, the land of this case as farmland until October 00, 2012 does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the former Income Tax Act, and it constitutes land for non-business use. Since the land of this case was used as farmland after October 0, 2013, and the Plaintiff failed to meet the re-laws requirements of Article 169-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it also constitutes land for non-business use.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3 and 4, evidence Nos. 3 and 4, evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the overall purport of the pleading, the following facts may be acknowledged:

1) Land category of the instant land was miscellaneous during the instant possession period.

2) The details of the Plaintiff’s change of address on the Plaintiff’s resident registration during the instant ownership period are as follows. Each address of the Plaintiff is about 33 km away from the land of this case.

3) The details of property tax on the instant land are as listed below (attached Table 2). The Plaintiff claimed that 00 Guns were growing agricultural crops on the instant land around January 1, 2013, and requested separate taxation under Article 106(1)3(a) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same). Accordingly, the instant land was classified as separate taxation and imposed after around January 2013.

4) As a result of aerial photography conducted around March 2009, around September 2009, around October 201, around March 201, and around March 3, 2011 with respect to the instant land, the instant land appears to be a site, and the specific utilization status is not verified. As a result of aerial photography conducted around October 201, it appears that the area of the instant land appears to have been partially accumulated on the west side of the instant land, and that the area of the said land is a plant owner. As a result of aerial photography conducted around June 2014, agricultural crops are cultivated on the instant land.

D. Determination

1) Relevant provisions

Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act provides for non-business land to which the amount of special deduction for long-term holding is not applicable pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act. Article 104-3 (1) of the former Income Tax Act provides that "land for non-business use" 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 provides that "land for dry field, dry field, and orchard (hereinafter referred to as "farmland") which falls under any of the following items" and "farmland for which the owner does not reside in the area or does not cultivate himself/herself as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act excludes farmland for which the owner does not reside in the area of the farmland or for which he/she does not cultivate, or for which Article 104-3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act excludes farmland under Article 8 (1) of the former Farmland Act.

On the other hand, Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "land for non-business use, other than farmland, forest land and stock farm land, except for the following items." (a) "land exempt or exempt from property tax pursuant to the Local Tax Act or related Acts", (b) "land subject to separate taxation of property tax or separate taxation of property tax pursuant to Article 106 (1) 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act", (c) "land prescribed by Presidential Decree as being directly related to residence or business in consideration of the situation of the use of land, whether the obligations of related Acts are fulfilled, and the amount of income." Article 168-1 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "land prescribed by Presidential Decree as being directly related to residence or business under delegation shall be the land falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and the building act shall be separately defined as "land prescribed by Presidential Decree" and the building act shall be separately defined as "land for which 30/100 of the construction permit or storage goods shall be kept and managed as the building site:

In addition, Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the period prescribed by Presidential Decree in the part other than each subparagraph of Article 104-3 (1) of the Act refers to the period falling under any of the following subparagraphs, "if subparagraph 1 owns the land for not less than five years, the period corresponding to all of the following items", "the period exceeding two years from the five years immediately preceding the date of transfer", "the period exceeding one year from the three years immediately preceding the date of transfer", and "the period exceeding one year from the three years preceding the date of transfer", and "the period exceeding 40/100 of the period of possession of the land under item (c). In this case, the calculation of the period shall be the date"

Finally, Article 168-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall apply the provisions of Article 104-3 of the Act.

In the case of farmland, forest land, land for stock farms and other land shall be determined based on the actual status, except as otherwise provided for in this Decree: Provided, That where the actual status is unclear, it shall be determined based on the registration status in the public register.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts as to the instant case, the instant land does not apply to the special deduction for long-term holding as non-business land. The instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① Since the actual status of the instant land is unclear until October 2012, it should be seen as miscellaneous land, which is the current status on the public register pursuant to Article 168-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. From October 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land cultivated crops on the instant land from October 2012, and around around 2013, the Plaintiff requested separate taxation under Article 106(1)3(a) of the former Local Tax Act by asserting that the instant land is growing crops on the instant land, and was recognized upon the request of 0 head of 0 Gun for separate taxation under Article 106(1)3(a) of the former Local Tax Act. According to the photograph of aerial photography taken on or around June 2014, the instant land was cultivated on the instant land. Accordingly, since the instant land was used for cultivating crops from January 1, 2013, it should be seen as farmland under Article 168-8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

② Examining the premise on this premise, since the current status of the instant land until December 31, 2012 is miscellaneous, it should be determined as to whether it is a non-business land pursuant to Article 104-3(1)4 of the former Income Tax Act. It does not fall under subparagraph (a) (b) or (b) of the same subparagraph as a general aggregate subject matter of taxation at the time, and according to the images of the aerial photography, it cannot be deemed that the instant land was used as a site for the open site, and thus, it does not fall under subparagraph (c) of the same subparagraph and Article 168-11(1)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly,

③ Since the present state of the instant land after October 0, 2013 is farmland, it shall be determined as to whether it is a non-business land pursuant to Article 104-3(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act. Since October 0, 2013, the Plaintiff resided in a place less than 33km in straight line from the instant land, and the requirements for re- village under subparagraph (a) (a) of the same subparagraph and Article 168-8(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are not satisfied, and thus, it also constitutes a non-business land.

④ Even if the Plaintiff claims that the instant land was actually cultivated on the instant land from October 2012, 2012, it is determined whether the instant land was farmland for non-business use. However, as at the time, the Plaintiff resided in a place less than 33 km in straight line from the instant land, the Plaintiff is also deemed as land for non-business use by satisfying the requirements for re-village

⑤ Therefore, it is clear that the instant land was idle land from October 2009 to October 0, 2014, which was the date of the transfer from around October 2009, where the status of use of aerial photography was confirmed, and the amount of special deduction for long-term possession is not applicable to “non-business land” as “non-business land under Article 104-3 (1) of the former Income Tax Act for a period exceeding two years immediately before the date of transfer, which is the period prescribed in Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, exceeding one year during the immediately preceding three years, the period exceeding one year during the immediately preceding three years, and the period equivalent to 20/100 of the period of ownership (i.e., 947 = x 4735 days from October 0, 201 to October 0, 201).

3. Conclusion

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