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 475,941,020 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2017 shall be revoked.

(a) Permission for changing the form and quality of a forest x 39-1 forest land in mountain 39,037 square meters in Si/Do;

1) A right A obtained permission for changing the form and quality of a forest from December 17, 199 】 from the market 】 】 6,144 square meters out of 39-1 forest land and 9,037 square meters in mountain 39-1 forest land and 39-1 forest land and 9,037 square meters in Si Do (hereinafter referred to as the “△△dong”), as the “site for resting,” the alteration of the form and quality of a forest from December 17, 1999 to December 16, 200; the alteration of the form and quality of a forest has been permitted for changing the form and quality of a forest from January 10, 201 to 8,958 square meters, the alteration of the form and quality of a forest from January 9, 2002 to the alteration of the form and quality of a forest until December 30, 203.

2) On August 22, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 3,156/9,037 square meters of forest 39-1 forest 39,037 square meters in △△dong-dong, and on September 20, 2003, sold 3,156/9,037 shares of the above land to YB (the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 24, 2010). Accordingly, the title holder of the permission for changing the form and quality of the forest was changed to the Plaintiff and YB, and was changed to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2003.

3) From December 2003, the Plaintiff obtained permission to extend the period of permission to convert a mountainous district with regard to 8,958 square meters among the forest land in Busan 39-1, △△dong, by making the completion date of December every year as to 8,958 square meters. The Plaintiff obtained permission to convert a mountainous district (Extension of Period) to extend the period of conversion to December 11, 2009 by December 11, 2009 (each extension permission includes the change of the name of permission to change the form and quality of a forest to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, and the change of use to the site of a gas station or a rest area, etc.).

(b) The Do Governor 】 Public notice of urban management plans;

1) On December 16, 2009, the Do governor of Do governor of Do, on December 16, 2009, determined and publicly announced the urban management planning (the alteration of specific-use area and the Class-I district unit planning) (the zone) (the zone for specific-use area) (the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area x the zone for specific-use area 39-1 forest and field 9,037 square meters was planned

2) On November 2010, the Plaintiff applied for permission to extend the period of conversion of a mountainous district to the land above. 】 The head of office of Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the head of Si/Gun/Gu decided to grant permission to extend the period of conversion on November 15, 2010 on the ground that “the land above is designated as a district unit planning zone, and the details of the district unit planning are not consistent with the district unit planning established in the above region.”

3) The Plaintiff and YB filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of non-permission for extension of the above exclusive use period (x district court 201Guhap8902), but the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “Inasmuch as the above land was determined and publicly notified as an urban management plan was determined and determined as the place where infrastructure, which is urban planning facilities, such as roads and green areas, is located, it is reasonable to not extend the period of conversion of the above land, and thus it is impossible to implement the project.” Although the Plaintiff appealed, it was dismissed on August 23, 2012.

(c) Dividing land;

1) On March 25, 2011, 201, 39-1 forest land of 39-1 forest land, 9,037 square meters in △△dong-dong was divided into 39-1 forest land of 39-1 forest land, 881 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land before the division”), 39-5 forest land of 39-5 forest land, 156 square meters, and on April 1, 201, ○○dong-dong 39-1 forest land of 39-1 forest land, 5,81 square meters was divided into the Plaintiff’s ownership, and 39-5 forest land of 3,156 square meters as owned by

2) On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff subdivided the land before the subdivision into 39-1 forest in Busan 39-1, 536 square meters, mountain 39-6 forest in mountain, 727 square meters in mountain, 39-7 forest in mountain, 1,461 square meters, 39-8 forest in mountain, 2,131 square meters in mountain, 39-9 forest in mountain, and 26 square meters in forest in mountain (hereinafter referred to as “after the division”), and among them, “the land after the division” is “the land after the division”.

D. Plaintiff’s land purchase and sale and imposition of transfer income tax by Defendant

1) 원고는 2015. 1. 30. ♡♡♡ 유한회사[아래 2)항의 변경 후 사업시행자이다]에게 분할 후 토지를 대금 6,226,500,000원에 매도하고 잔금은 2015. 4. 30. 지급받기로 하였는데, ♡♡♡ 유한회사가 잔금을 지급하지 못하자 2016년경 대금을 6,623,205,000원으로, 잔금지급기일을 2016. 7. 7.로 변경하는 계약을 체결하되 그 계약서의 작성일자는 기존 계약일인 2015. 1. 30.로 소급하여 작성하였다.

2) 】 The Mayor publicly announced the 】 (i) September 23, 2015 】 (ii) City public notice 】 (2015 】 】 】 head of the Si 】 】 】 】 】 】 designation of the project implementer for urban planning facility in the buffer district and authorization of the implementation plan (change). According to the above public notice, the instant land

3) On July 7, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for land after dividing the land to the Defendant on the grounds of sale as of June 8, 2016.

4) On August 8, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 475,941,020 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s report on the transfer income tax shall be examined and corrected as the land for non-business use” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

5) The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 10, 2017, but was dismissed on February 20, 2018, and was served a written decision on the appeal around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, 10, 13-20, 22, 23, 28 evidence, Eul 1 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In order to build a rest area and a gas station on the instant land, the Plaintiff obtained permission for changing the form and quality of a forest and made forest deforestation creation work. The land category and actual form and quality of the instant land were changed to miscellaneous land. Therefore, the instant disposition that determined the instant land as a non-business land on the premise that it is a forest land is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff obtained permission for changing the form and quality of a forest to use the instant land as a site for a gas station and a resting place, and performed forest felling and land-mination creation work. However, the Plaintiff’s use of the instant land constitutes land prohibited or limited pursuant to the Plaintiff’s acquisition purpose, since it was impossible to install gas stations and resting places according to the Do governor’s notice on December 16, 2009 and the decision on no extension of permission for mountainous district conversion was made on November 15, 2010.

① Therefore, the instant land shall be deemed land for business from December 16, 2009, which is the public notice date, to July 7, 2016, the transfer date of the instant land.

② Even if not, the entire area was designated as a green area prior to December 16, 2009, with the area of 39-1 forest land and 9,037 square meters in △△-dong, △△△-dong prior to December 16, 2009, which was classified into a residential area and a green area by the Gyeonggi-do public notice issued on December 16, 2009, but was still made up of one parcel. After subdivision of the said area in 2011 and 2014, the said land was found to have been designated as a green area after March 30, 201 】 (i) the Plaintiff was to be designated as a part of the said land in the public notice 】 (ii) the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the said land was designated as a green area. Therefore, from December 16, 2009 to November 7, 2014, the said land should be deemed as a residential area, and the instant land constitutes land for business purposes for at least three years immediately preceding five years.

3) The Plaintiff intended to use the land of this case designated as a green area among the land before subdivision as land for non-business purposes in violation of the purpose of the transfer income tax and the system, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful, since it is against the purpose of the transfer income tax and the system, since the Plaintiff’s use of the land of this case as land for non-business purposes is against the purpose of the transfer income tax and the system.

B. Determination

1) Whether the actual form and quality of the instant land have been changed

A) Articles 95(1) and (2), and 104-3(1) of the Income Tax Act, etc. shall be calculated by subtracting the special deduction for long-term holding from gains on transfer where the land is transferred for at least three years, and the special deduction for long-term holding may not be applied to a transferor of land for non-business. The criteria for land for non-business shall be separately determined by dividing the land into farmland, woodland, stock farm, stock farm, and other land.

B) According to the land category of the instant land is forest and field, and according to the images of Gap 11, 21, and Eul 2 and 5, the fact that trees planted on the instant land had been removed is recognized.

2. However, according to the above evidence and evidence as stated in evidence Nos. 58, 168-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the determination of farmland, forest land, stock farm land and other land is based on the actual status except as otherwise provided in special provisions. However, if the actual status is unclear, the determination of land for non-business use is based on the registration status in the public register. However, the plaintiff asserts that the land of this case is miscellaneous since the forest cutting and the land of this case is completed, but the land of this case is deemed miscellaneous. However, considering the fact that the land of this case is completed, it is not impossible to view the land of this case as forest land, sand land, gravel land, sand land, wetlands land, wetlands land, and yellow land (Article 58 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data). According to the evidence of this case, even if the land of this case was completed with horizontalization work, it can be deemed that the land of this case can be considered as forest land of this case.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, premised on the fact that the form and quality of the instant land was changed to miscellaneous land.

2) Whether the instant land was the land prohibited or restricted pursuant to the statute

A) In light of the language and purport of relevant provisions, such as the Income Tax Act, “land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the Act and subordinate statutes,” refers to land, the use of which is specially restricted beyond the ordinary scope according to its use, and it is reasonable to view that such land includes not only the land directly prohibited or restricted by the statutory provision itself, but also the land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by an administrative agency as part of an administrative action, uniformly controlling the building permit, etc. as part of the administrative action. Furthermore, the determination on whether it constitutes such case is based on the principle of limitation on the use of the land according to its original purpose, but also on an individual basis, such as the purpose of acquiring the land, the actual use of the land, and the possibility of changing its original use (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1425, Oct. 3

B) According to the following circumstances that can be recognized based on the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the instant land cannot be deemed as land prohibited or restricted from use pursuant to Article 168-14(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

① Since the land category on the public register of this case is forest land, it should be determined on the basis of whether or not the use of the forest as the original purpose of the instant land is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. (2) Although the land, including the instant land, was designated as a buffer green belt on December 16, 2009 x 209-200, but the buffer green belt was impossible to be used for other purposes than the original purpose of designation, there is no special statutory restriction on using the said land as forest land according to its original purpose of use. (3) In fact, the instant land was used continuously as a forest land such as trees and grass. (4) It was rejected on November 15, 2010 for the extension of the permission for changing the form and quality of the instant land to the extent that it was impossible to obtain permission for new construction, such as the rest area, and the permission for alteration of the land category to the original purpose of the relevant urban management plan cannot be seen as being included in 20 years after the alteration of the land category and nature of the instant land.

C) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, premised on the fact that the instant land was prohibited or restricted by law.

3) Whether deeming only the portion of the instant land designated as a green area pursuant to a district unit plan among the lands before subdivision as land for non-business use goes against the intent of the capital gains tax mid-term system

양도소득세의 부과대상인 '양도'란 자산을 유상으로 사실상 이전하는 것을 말하는 것이고(소득세법 제88조 참조), 자산 중 토지는 필지별로 이전되는 것이므로, 여러 필지를 한 번에 양도하는 경우에도 양도차익, 장기보유 특별공제 등 양도소득금액은 양도시기인 대금청산일을 기준으로 필지 별로 판단・계산되어야 하고(대법원 1993. 7. 27. 선고 92누19613 판결 등 참조), 갑 23, 28호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고는 ♡♡♡ 유한회사에게 분할 후 토지 전부를 매도하며 필지별로 매매대금을 정한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition in this case and the land after division is considered as land for non-business use, and the transferred land is owned as a means of property increase and cannot be deemed to be in violation of the legislative purpose of the capital gains tax system (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2011Hun-Ba357, Jul. 26, 2012; en banc Decision 201Hun-Ba357, Jul. 26, 2012; the Plaintiff purchased the above land for one purpose or sold it to the implementor of urban planning facilities (Article 104(5) of the Income Tax Act). In case of calculating the capital gains tax by asset among the transfer of two or more land, “if the land of one parcel is divided into the land for non-business use under Article 104-3 and the other land is divided into the land for non-business use and the calculated capital gains tax is calculated by dividing it into the land for non-business use use and the land for business use). This part of the Plaintiff’

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.