Article 96 (Transfer Price)

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

A. On March 16, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a contract on December 8, 2005, on the transfer of KRW 10,490,000 to Nonparty ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an aggregate of KRW 1,686,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) acquired from Nonparty 1, 2,989,650,000; (b) entered into a contract on the transfer of KRW 10,490,000,000 out of the purchase price to Nonparty 1, 200, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land in the name of Nonparty 2, 206, on March 22, 2006.

B. On May 31, 2006, the Plaintiff deemed the instant land as land for non-business use and calculated capital gains tax of KRW 2,682,183,600 based on the actual transaction price.

C. On September 21, 2006, the Plaintiff claimed that transfer margin should be calculated based on the grounds that the land in this case was purchased by consultation with a project operator under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and other Acts (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”) is excluded from the land for non-business use, and filed a claim for correction that refund of KRW 2,581,298,200 from the amount of tax so reported and paid. On December 14, 2006, the Defendant rendered a disposition to the Plaintiff to refuse the above request for correction on the grounds that the land in this case falls under the land for non-business use (hereinafter “the disposition in this case”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection with the Daegu Regional Tax Office on March 12, 2007, but the application was dismissed on April 25, 2007. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 25, 2007, but the claim on March 12, 2008 was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

At the time when the Plaintiff fully pays the purchase price of the instant land or transfers the registration thereof, the non-party company, the purchaser of the instant land, was already in the status of the executor of the public works, and the non-party company was able to implement the urban planning facility project, which is a public project, only by purchasing the instant land. Therefore, the instant land does not constitute non-business land, which was purchased under the Land Compensation Act, and thus, the transfer price calculated on the basis that the actual transaction price applied to the standard market price at

(b) Related statutes;

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)

Article 96 (Transfer Price)

Article 104-3 (Scope of Land for Non-business)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the instant land acquired on March 16, 2005 to the Nonparty Company for KRW 10,490,000,000 and received KRW 10,000,000 on the date of the contract, and entered into a trust registration on the instant land to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 8, 2005. On March 22, 2006, the Plaintiff received KRW 490,000 from the Nonparty Company for the registration of ownership transfer on March 30, 2006. However, the Nonparty Company did not undergo consultation under the Land Compensation Act during the process of purchasing the instant land.

B. On June 20, 2003, ○○ City, ○○ City, ○○-si, ○○-si, ○○○-si, 2003-22, the instant land was designated as Class 1 district unit planning zone. On October 30, 2004, 232 of the instant land was designated as urban planning facilities (road and buffer green belt) and 233 in the case of urban planning facilities (buffer green belt). On December 30, 205, the instant land was designated as Class 232 district unit planning facilities (road and buffer green belt) under Article 86 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (road and green belt). The designation of the operator of the urban planning facilities (road and green belt) under Article 17 of the Housing Act was deemed as the project operator.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence as mentioned above, the head of ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○ and ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○ and the fact-finding results of each inquiry about the Metropolitan City ○○○

D. Determination

(1) In light of the provisions of Articles 94, 96, and 104-3 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of the transfer of non-business land by December 31, 2006, the actual transaction value shall be based on the transfer value if the non-business land is transferred, but the standard market value at the time of the transfer shall be based on the transfer value as the land purchased by consultation with the landowner and the method of consultation under the above Act is the premise that the purchaser is the person who is in the position of the project operator at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the land. In addition, in full view of the provisions of Articles 16, 17 of the Land Compensation Act, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the land purchased by consultation pursuant to the Land Compensation Act is presumed to be the person who is in the position of the project operator at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the land.

D. We examine whether the land of this case was purchased by consultation under the Land Compensation Act and excluded from the non-business land. As seen above, on December 8, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the non-party company for the land of this case and received KRW 10,000,000, which is the amount of 95% of the purchase price, and later on December 30, 2005, the non-party company, the purchaser of this case, was deemed to have been designated as the implementor of the urban planning facility project. Thus, at the time of entering into a sales contract for the land of this case, the non-party company, the purchaser of this case, was in the status of a private person, not the business operator who is entitled to purchase, but the non-party company was in the status of a private person, and the non-party company did not have gone through the procedure of consultation under the Land Compensation Act during the purchase process of the land of this case, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case was purchased by consultation under the Land Compensation Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant land is land for non-business use is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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