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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 00,000,000 (Additional Tax) for the transfer income tax of the year 2013 owed to Plaintiff on June 28, 2016

(including) revoke the rejection of an application for rectification.

(1) On August 1, 1989, the Plaintiff divided and transferred 00,000,000 won of capital gains tax for 200,000,000 won for transfer income tax for 200,000,000 won for transfer income tax for 2013 (=0,000,000 won for additional tax on negligent tax returns + KRW 00,000,000 for additional tax on negligent tax returns + KRW 00,000 for additional tax on negligent tax returns of 0,000,000 for 2013).

B. The Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 of global income tax for the year 2013 on September 27, 2016, on the ground that the income accrued from the transfer of each of the above forests and fields constitutes business income, and filed a request for correction on April 27, 2016, for refund of KRW 00,000,000, which was paid to the Defendant.

On June 28, 2016, the director of ○○○ Tax Office rendered the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that income from the transfer of each of the above forests constitutes capital gains.

Applicant filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but dismissed on April 28, 2017.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-2, 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(i) The Plaintiff, from 2012 to 2014, shall develop the forest he/she succeeds to over 11 times in total.

In addition, since the transfer by installments should be taxed as business income, the transfer by mistake has been made and paid as transfer income, the disposition of this case refusing to request for correction of the transfer income tax already paid should be revoked as illegal.

The disposition of this case is legitimate in the following point of view, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing out its illegality is without merit.

○ Whether the income from the transfer of real estate is a business income or capital gains under the Income Tax Act shall be determined according to social norms by taking into account the transferor’s acquisition and holding status of real estate, creation, existence of transfer, size and frequency of transfer, mode, other party, etc., as well as the continuity and repetition of business activities to the extent that such transfer aims at profit. In making such determination, not only the transfer of real estate but also the transfer of real estate should be taken into account when the transfer was conducted throughout the entire real estate owned by the transferor (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du21768, Jul. 22, 2010).

In light of the fact that the acquisition and transfer of real estate, which is an act of generating capital gains, may entail such an act for the purpose of realizing a certain amount of profit, the mere fact that the land on one parcel was sold in succession over a long period cannot be easily recognized as having the feasibility of the sale solely on the ground that it was sold in succession over a long-term period. Even in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s sale of the said forest land in succession over 11 times from 2012 to 2014 is merely the fact that the said forest was sold in succession, and the acquisition and sale of the said land on one occasion other than the said forest does not constitute the acquisition and sale of the said forest land in succession, and thus it is difficult

○ We examine whether to recognize business feasibility for development and sale activities following the following.

In order to constitute real estate development and supply business, land for various purposes, such as housing sites, farmland, farms, and industrial areas, constitutes "real estate development and supply business" (hereinafter "real estate development and supply business"). However, in order to constitute real estate development and supply business, it should be sufficient to recognize the feasibility of the development and sale of the land itself by "development and sale" due to the essential characteristics of the business, namely, the continuity and repetition of the development and sale to the extent that it can be seen as business activities, as well as by the development and sale of the land in essence in terms of business profitability, as well as the continuity and repetition of the development and sale of the land in question. It is difficult to deem that development activities conducted within the extent necessary to divide and transfer the land, which do not fall under the category of development activities that do not in essence increase the value of the land in question, and do not fall under the category of real estate development and supply business, if the land is developed for other purposes, such as farmland, farm, and land for other purposes, but it is difficult to recognize the sale of forest land for other purposes without changing its form and quality.

In 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) opened a land-based construction project, such as civil engineering works, and transferred two parcels by dividing them into the entrance road in 2013; (b) referring to the circumstances that the Plaintiff transferred eight parcels after performing the land-based construction project, such as civil engineering works, etc. in 2014; and (c) claimed that the feasibility of such development and sale should be recognized.

(2) 1: 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 20

However, it is difficult to conclude that the cost of divisional cadastral surveying and the cost of land division registration for the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation in 2013 mentioned by the Plaintiff is the cost for the development of the said woodland. The remainder of the cost, namely, the cost of partially packing the roads entering the said forest or land or covering part of the cost of installation of the said rocks, etc. in light of the size and current status of the said forest and land and the circumstance of the divided sale, etc., it can be evaluated that it is necessary to secure access roads, etc. for the consecutive sale of the said forest and land from time to time in the situation where it is necessary to secure access roads, etc. for the above forest and land in order to sell them in succession, and it is difficult to conclude that the development cost of the year 2014 mentioned by the Plaintiff was the cost of the said forest and land development as the whole or part of the said forest and land, and it is difficult to conclude that the remaining cost of the said forest and land was part of the sale of the forest and land, not the sale of the forest and land in essence of the above land.

나아가 사업자등록증(갑 제7호증)에서 보는 바와 같이, 원고가 2015. 8. 19. '◆◆개발'이라는 상호의 개인사업체(업태 부동산업, 종목 부동산매매, 택지개발)에 관한 사업자등록을 하였지만, 이로써 원고가 2013년도에 부동산 개발업을 영위하였다는 근거로 삼기는 어렵다.

○ Ultimately, to the extent that it is necessary to successively divide and sell the above forest land in a broad area, the Plaintiff is merely engaged in a one-time access road package, rocking, fume fume, etc. at that time, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is engaged in real estate sales business or real estate development business, and the Plaintiff’s income from the sale of the above forest land in 2013 constitutes capital gains.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.