자연생성된 임목의 양도로 발생한 소득은 사업소득으로 볼 수 없음[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2009Gudan16131 (2010.09)
Review Transfer 2009-0147 ( October 27, 2009)
Income generated from the transfer of natural forest trees shall not be deemed business income.
If the forest transaction cannot be deemed as the business, the transfer income tax shall be imposed on the land by deeming the transfer value of the land as the transfer value without distinguishing the transfer value of the land from the transfer value of the forest land
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 20, 2009 shall be revoked.
쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000
1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance
The court's reasoning is from '1.1. Disposition' to 2. The plaintiff's argument that the disposition is legitimate. (b) Relevant statutes are identical to the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, the relevant part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
Article 94 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act defines income accruing from the transfer of land or buildings as transfer income, Article 19 (1) 1 of the Income Tax Act defines income accruing from forestry as business income, and Article 99 of the Civil Act provides that land and its fixtures are real estate.
The part of the land is part of the land, which is an object to the land without registering the land in accordance with the law on standing timber and has not been equipped with the scenic method. Therefore, in the case of trees on the land, it is part of the land and the income from the transfer of the land.
The argument is without merit.
[The attached sale contract concerning the forest of this case (No. 2) contains "forest subject to sale" as "forest subject to sale", and there are no other matters concerning other standing timber. At the time of the transfer of this case, the plaintiff only sold the forest of this case as part of the forest of this case, but it cannot be deemed that the tree was considered as the object of the sale of the tree. No evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff was operating the forestry as a business."
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.