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

A. The Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer in its name on October 25, 2002 with respect to the portion of 992/4629 square meters among DB-Gu CB-GuCC 277-3 forest land 992 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), and on April 10, 2003 with respect to all remaining shares.

B. On September 8, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred the instant forest to EE Development Co., Ltd. with KRW 39 million, and reported and paid KRW 66,753,410 of the transfer income tax calculated by deeming that the instant forest does not fall under the “non-business land” under Article 104-3(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same).

C. However, on January 4, 2010, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition that corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 86,227,960 for transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008, by applying the tax rate of 60% under Article 104(1)2-7 of the Income Tax Act, deeming that the instant forest falls under the land for non-business use.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5, Eul evidence 9-1, 2-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the key issue is that forest land does not fall under the non-business land under Article 104-3 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the forest land in question falls under the non-business

(1) Considering that the provisions of the Income Tax Act on the transfer income tax rate, etc. on land for non-business have been enforced from January 1, 2007, the term "period as determined by the Presidential Decree" under Article 104-3 (1) of the Income Tax Act on whether such land for non-business use falls under the period as determined by the Presidential Decree shall also be calculated from January 1, 2007. The forest of this case is transferred within two years from January 1, 2007 and does not meet the requirements of "period exceeding two years from the five years immediately preceding the date of transfer" under subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009).

(2) The instant forest land is classified as forest land on which the public record is land category, but is a third-class general residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and can newly build a house, etc., so whether it falls under the category of non-business land under Article 104-3 (1) 4 (c) of the Income Tax Act should be determined. The instant forest falls under the category of forest land under Article 168-11 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or the land under subparagraph 14 of Article 16

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the plaintiff's first argument

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired the entire forest of this case, the land category of which is a forest by April 10, 2003, and transferred the forest of this case on September 8, 2008. Therefore, when applying each of the provisions of Article 104-3 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 168-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the forest of this case is deemed to fall under the land for which 60/100 shall be applied pursuant to Article 104 (1) 2-7 of the Income Tax Act, and the reasons as alleged above by the Plaintiff alone are difficult to view that the “period as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” under Article 104-3 (1) of the Income Tax Act should be calculated from January 1, 2007. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

In light of the statements in Eul evidence 3-1 to 5, it is difficult to view the forest land of this case as "land other than farmland, forest land and stock farm land" under Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act only with the statement in Gap evidence 5 and 6, and it is insufficient to recognize that the forest land of this case was used as a storage under Article 168-11 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or it falls under the land under Article 168-1 (1) 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the disposition of this case by the defendant who reported the forest land as non-business land.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.