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 399,770,400 for the Plaintiff on July 16, 2012 shall be revoked.

A. On July 13, 1982, the Plaintiff acquired each of 1,352 square meters prior to ○○○○-dong, ○○-dong (hereinafter “○○-dong”) and 1,296 square meters prior to ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, as seen below, the Plaintiff acquired each of ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, and ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, and ○○-dong, ○-dong, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. On July 13, 1982, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on July 8, 1982, 00 ○ District Court ○○○○○ registry (hereinafter “○○ registry”) (hereinafter “○○ registry”).

C. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on July 8, 1982, as ○○ registry office, No. 23180, which received on July 13, 1982, with respect to 1,296 square meters prior to ○○dong, ○○○○○○○○○.

D. ○○○ City established an “basic urban planning” in 2020, and formulated an “○○ Urban Management Planning” in 2010 pursuant to Article 34 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”). On August 14, 2006, the Plaintiff changed the “○○ Dong, including the instant real estate, into a Class 1 residential area with respect to the instant ○○ Dong, which includes the instant real estate, and at the same time publicly notified the determination of an urban management planning with respect to the content of the designation as a Class 1 district unit planning zone.

E. On July 13, 2007, 2007 public notice No. 2007-569 was made on July 13, 2007, the head of ○○○ City, a corporation, ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant implementer”) submitted a proposal for residents on the urban management plan (revision) regarding the members of ○○○dong, along with a written consent of 71.6% from the land owner in the zone, and the residents were announced for public inspection of the proposal. On August 28, 2007, the real estate of this case was adjusted to Class I general residential area as Class II residential area in Class I general residential area, and the land use was designated as urban planning facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on urban management plan of this case”).

F. On October 15, 2007, the ○○○○ City made a disposition of approving the housing construction project plan that constructs seven units of apartment houses on the land outside ○○○○-dong and 70 parcels on the ground, and on the same day, publicly announced by ○○ City Public Notice No. 2007-914.

G. On February 10, 2009, ○○ Dong was divided into 1,345 square meters prior to ○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○, 2 square meters prior to ○○ Dong, and 5 square meters prior to ○○ Dong, respectively.

H. On February 10, 2009, ○○○○ Dong was divided into 96 square meters prior to ○○○ Dong, 299 square meters prior to ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, 1 square meters prior to ○○ Dong, and ○○ Dong, respectively, divided into 728 square meters prior to ○○ Dong on February 26, 2009 and 268 square meters prior to ○ Dong, respectively.

I. Of the instant real property, ○○○○○ Dong and ○○ Dong, among the instant real property, ○○○○○○○○○○ and ○○ Dong were respectively admitted by ○○○○○○○○○, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “transfer of the instant case”). (The Plaintiff transferred 4 lots of land on ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○, respectively, to the instant event and the instant ○○○○, ○○, and ○○○, respectively).

(j) On October 31, 2010, the Plaintiff deemed the transfer date of this case as October 28, 2010, and filed a tax base return of capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant return”).

(k) In filing the instant report, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the tax amount reduced or exempted as KRW 200,000 on the ground that the instant real estate was self-defilled for at least eight years; and (b) reported the tax amount to be paid as KRW 1

(l) On July 16, 2012, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s order of reduction or exemption, and deemed the date of the instant transfer as the date of December 30, 2009 (in the case of ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ Dong, December 31, 2009, the earlier date is recognized to determine whether three years have elapsed from the date of incorporation into a residential area; hereinafter “the date of instant transfer”) and issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 400,564,950 for the transfer income tax of 2009 (hereinafter “instant prior disposition”).

(m) The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the preceding disposition of this case. On May 30, 2013, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on the Plaintiff on July 27, 2012 that “the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in writing on July 16, 2012) imposed capital gains tax of KRW 400,564,950 on the Plaintiff in July 27, 2012, and the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax of KRW 400,564,950 on the Plaintiff on December 30, 209, ○○○ Do, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, and ○○, hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision”).

n. According to the instant decision, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 399,770,400 on the transfer of this case to the Plaintiff in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, evidence No. 4 through 7, evidence No. 8-1, and evidence No. 1 through No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The procedural defect argument

(A) In conducting a tax investigation on the transfer of this case, the Defendant did not give prior notice to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the court below did not err.

(B) A decision to conduct a tax investigation is not given prior notice as an administrative disposition infringing upon the rights and interests of the people.

The decision of tax investigation is illegal.

(2) Claim for exemption from capital gains tax

(A) The instant land is not land within a residential area as of the date of the instant transfer.

(B) A city for the instant land as of December 30, 2009, deemed by the Defendant as the date of the instant transfer.

The plan is a landscape green belt and road other than a residential area, as announced by the topographical map No. 2007-172 of ○○ City's notification on September 13, 2007.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence stated in Eul evidence No. 8:

(1) Progress of an urban planning project relating to the instant real estate

(A) As of October 6, 2008, ○○ City announced publicly on October 6, 2008, 2008, project name related to the instant implementer: project approval and public notice was given for the landscape green belt No. 70 (hereinafter “the green belt project of this case”).

(B) On October 27, 2008, ○○ City announced a project name as 2008-272: project name: 1-21 lines, 1-430 lines of small and medium 1-19 lines of 1-21 lines of 1-430 lines, 1-19 lines of 1-19 lines of 1-21 lines of 208 (hereinafter “the road project of this case”).

(C) On April 28, 2009, ○○ City publicly announced the land subject to the road project of this case as five square meters (one-21 line), five square meters (one-430 lines) before ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, and 268 square meters (one-430 lines) before ○○-dong, ○○-dong, respectively.

(D) On September 15, 2009, ○○ City announced the name of the project of this case to the landscape green belt No. 36, and publicly announced the subject land to ○○-dong ○○○, ○○-dong ○○○○, etc.

(E) The real estate of this case is located near ○○ Elementary School located ○○ Dong, Dong, and is located near ○○ School.

In the vicinity, apartment complexes, neighborhood shops, detached houses, undeveloped miscellaneous land and forest land are mixed, the vehicle access is possible, the bus stops are located in the nearby areas, and the public transportation situation is difficult, and the irregular sloping land was used as landscaped green areas and roads together with adjacent land.

(F) On November 30, 2009, ○○○○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○○ Dong, and ○○ Dong on December 30, 2009, respectively, rendered an expropriation ruling on the commencement date of expropriation on December 30, 2009.

(G) On the ○○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○ Dong, ○○○○○○, the instant executor, on January 2, 2009.

30. Each registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of expropriation, No. 44131, December 30, 2009.

(h) On December 31, 2009, 44383 received on December 31, 2009, ○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, respectively, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of expropriation on December 30, 209.

(i) On July 6, 2010, 16743 received on July 6, 2010, ○○○○○○-dong, and ○○-dong, and completed each registration of ownership transfer based on donation on July 5, 2010.

(j) Of the instant real property, ○○○-dong and ○○-dong ○○○○, ○○-dong and ○○-dong, and ○○-dong.

○○ and ○○○○○○○○-dong, respectively, the parcel number was changed to ○○○-dong.

(2) The process of litigation related to the determination of the instant urban planning

(A) On June 10, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant urban planning decision with the ○○ City Mayor as the Defendant under ○○ District Court 2008Guhap5828.

(B) On July 23, 2008, the instant executor filed an application for intervention in the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Defendant ○○ Market.

(C) On January 12, 2009, the Plaintiff dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant housing construction project approval disposition against the executor on October 15, 2007 against the Defendant’s Intervenor (Defendant). Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, ○○ Market (Defendant) was sentenced to the judgment that “the part seeking revocation of the urban management planning decision rendered on August 28, 2007 by the Plaintiff’s ○○ Market (Defendant) among the instant lawsuit was dismissed.”

(D) The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment of the first instance court as ○○ High Court 2009Nu7709.

On August 28, 2007, among urban management planning decisions made by ○○ market (the Defendant) on August 28, 2007, the part that “the part that was designated as urban planning facilities (a scenic green belt, road) and 1,296 square meters prior to ○○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, and the same ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, and the part that was revoked as urban planning facilities (a scenic green belt, road), was changed, but the decision was rendered on June 3, 2010 that “the plaintiff’s appeal and the ancillary claim added

(E) The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2010Du14183 on the above judgment of the second instance, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on October 28, 2010.

(3) Progress of the lawsuit regarding the instant real estate expropriation ruling

(A) On April 23, 2010, the Plaintiff and ○○ District Court as the Defendant to the instant Si event.

In 2010Guhap5470, land expropriation filed a lawsuit, such as revocation of the disposition of revocation of the adjudication (the Central Land Expropriation Committee was also the defendant in the beginning of the party, and the lawsuit was withdrawn).

(B) On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff’s ○○ City and the instant trial event are the Defendant and the ○○ District Court.

In 2010Guhap7742, land expropriation filed a lawsuit, such as revocation of disposition of revocation of adjudication (the Central Land Expropriation Committee also withdrawn the lawsuit against the defendant in the beginning of the party). This case was combined with the above ○○ District Court 2010Guhap5470 case.

(C) On November 17, 201, 201, the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 1, 2011 to November 17, 2011, ○○ District Court 2010Guhap5470, 7742 (Joint). Defendant ○○○ was sentenced to the judgment that “The remainder of the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants (○○○ Si, the instant enforcement company) are dismissed”, and the Defendant’s enforcement company was 211,089,60 won per annum from December 1, 2009 to November 17, 201, and 20% per annum.

(D) As to the above judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff as ○○ High Court 201Nu45919, 45926 (Joint)

On November 7, 2013, the part against the executor of the instant case in excess of the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the executor of the instant case is dismissed. The executor of the instant case pays to the plaintiff 167,985,00 won per annum from December 31, 2009 to November 7, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants (○○ Si and the executor of the instant case) and all of the remaining incidental appeals to the exercise of the instant case were dismissed.

(E) On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2013Du26354, 26361 (merged), but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on the said judgment of the second instance.

(4) Progress of prior tax investigation of the instant disposition

(A) On April 9, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of tax investigation regarding the instant transfer (hereinafter “instant notice”).

The notice was issued.

(B) On April 10, 2012, the Defendant sent a notice of tax investigation to the Plaintiff by accepting (receiving number: ○○, registration number: ○○, and : ○○) a mail for sending the instant notice to the Director-General of ○○.

(C) Defendant employees Kim ○, and Ma○○○ were engaged in the instant tax investigation (type of investigation: on-site investigation) relating to the instant transfer from April 23, 2012 to May 7, 2012.

(D) On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was notified of the result of a tax investigation by the Defendant, and on June 14, 2012, filed a request for pre-assessment review to the Defendant.

C. Determination of procedural defect arguments

(1) Where a decision is made to conduct a tax investigation for which the tax authority's right to inquire and investigate is enforced.

In full view of the fact that a taxpayer bears the legal obligation to answer questions of tax officials for the collection of taxation data and to allow an inspection, a tax investigation must be conducted to the minimum extent necessary for appropriate and fair taxation, and a tax investigation must be conducted to the extent necessary to realize appropriate and fair taxation. Moreover, a reinvestigation of the same tax item and taxable period has serious infringement on taxpayers’ rights and interests, such as taxpayers’ freedom of business operation, and there is a risk of arbitrary tax investigation by the tax authorities, and thus, there is a need to be prohibited except for exceptional cases significantly contrary to the principle of fair taxation, and a taxpayer can settle disputes over the decision of tax investigation prior to or after the completion of an investigation, rather than allowing a dispute over only the taxation disposition after the completion of an investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du23617, 23624, Mar. 10, 2011).

(2) On April 9, 2012, the disposition authority stated that the plaintiff's pre-assessment of the cause of the claim stated in the plaintiff's request for pre-assessment review is "by a tax investigation". According to the transfer income tax investigation written by the defendant's employee, in order to clarify the date of incorporation of transferred farmland into a residential area with the transferor's agent, the ○○ Urban Planning Department and the drawings as at the time of incorporation into a residential area in 2006 were examined together with the transferor's agent, and it was accurately confirmed that the transferred farmland was incorporated into a residential area and agreed without the transferor's opinion on August 14, 2006 as at the date of initial public notice. Even if it was incorporated into a residential area, until specific approval for the implementation of the project is granted, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's tax official's act of receiving the notice of this case is an infringement of the taxpayer's rights and interests by either changing the form and quality of the transfer and constructing a new building where the owner wishes to do so, and immediately after the collection of the notice of this case's notice.

Taking account of the fact that it is a voluntary investigation, procedural defect without a prior notice of tax investigation cannot be deemed as serious to the extent that it affects the illegality of the instant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du26613, 2010Du15972, supra).

D. Determination on the assertion on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax

(1) Relevant legal principles

(A) The principle of no taxation without law, or the requirement of tax exemption or reduction.

In addition, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret without any reasonable reason, and in particular, it is in line with the principle of equity in taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that clearly state preferential treatment among the requirements for reduction or exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1191, Jan. 27, 201).

(B) The date of incorporation into a residential area under the National Land Planning Act is the time when the competent Minister approves and makes a public announcement of the matters concerning the determination of urban planning, such as areas, districts, and areas, or urban planning facilities, etc. Accordingly, it is not the time when the head of a Si/Gun/Gu makes an application for the approval of a cadastral public announcement based on the implementation plan and planning drawings received from the competent Minister (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4034, Dec. 9, 2004).

(C) The effect of the determination of urban planning is due to the public notice of the determination of urban planning, and it does not arise due to the public notice of the approval of the cadastral public notice drawing. However, in general, the drawings of the public notice of the determination of urban planning alone cannot specify specific scope or individual land, so the specific and individual scope of the effect of the determination of urban planning is determined by the cadastral public notice drawing. Even though it is evident that a specific land is not included in the urban planning even through the urban planning decision public notice and its drawing, if the cadastral public notice drawing shows that the land is included in the urban planning, the cadastral approval is a substantial change in the determination of urban planning, and thus, it shall be deemed that the urban planning is automatically null and void unless it goes through a legitimate procedure of change in the urban planning under Article 12 of the Urban Planning Act (see Supreme Court Decision

(2) Determination

(A) According to each of the above evidence, the land in this case was incorporated into a residential area on August 14, 2006, the specific use area of the land in this case was an urban area and a Class II general residential area at the time of the transfer date of this case, and the transfer of this case was made three years after the date of incorporation of the land in this case into the residential area. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation in this part is groundless.

(B) Other facts recognized as above are shown in the records, i.e., the following circumstances:

The urban and Gun management plan means the development of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Special Self-Governing City, Special Self-Governing Province or Si

The term "land use, traffic, environment, safety, industry, information and communications, health, welfare, security, culture, etc." means a plan to designate or change a special-purpose area or a special-purpose district, infrastructure installation, maintenance or improvement plan, etc. of infrastructure. A special-purpose area refers to an area determined by an urban or Gun management plan not overlapping each other in order to use land and promote public welfare by restricting the use and use of land, use of buildings, building-to-land ratio, floor area ratio, height, etc., the special-purpose district refers to an area determined by an urban or Gun management plan to enhance the functions of the special-purpose area by strengthening or relaxing restrictions on the use and use of land, building-to-land ratio, floor area ratio, height, etc., the special-purpose district refers to an area determined by an urban or Gun management plan to promote scenic, landscape, safety, etc., such as transportation facilities, green space facilities, such as roads, railroads, airports and parking lots, distribution business facilities, waterworks and gas supply facilities, broadcasting and communications facilities such as utility tunnels, public sports facilities, physical facilities, cultural facilities such as river, storage facilities and sewage facilities as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

○ In light of the aforementioned classification, a specific use area of the instant land is a residential area, and that is,

The use of land is only designated as urban planning facilities (a scenic green belt and road).

○○○○-si Public Notice No. 2007-172 (hereinafter “Public Notice”) determined and publicly notified the district unit planning zone and Class 1 district unit planning under Article 50 of the National Land Planning Act with respect to the ○○○○ Urban Management Planning (Class 1 district unit planning), and upon the instant public notice, the first-class district unit planning zone of ○○○-dong shall be located outside ○○○-dong, and 67,892 square meters with the area to be incorporated into 62,080 square meters from 62,080 square meters to 67,892 square meters. The area to be incorporated into 5,812 square meters (3,418 square meters from ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 40 square meters from ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, 2080 square meters through the existing general residential zone.

○ With respect to the urban management planning concerning the arrangement and scale of infrastructure among the instant public notice

The fact that 3,552 square meters in a specific general residential area are 3,221 square meters in scenic green areas (a ground for determination is a non-execution road in order to improve the landscape in the area by preventing pollution, such as exhaust gas, noise, vibration, etc. and preserving a good natural environment at the time of the creation of 1-21 rental lines as it is an unexecution road), and 331 square meters in buffer green areas (a ground for determination is newly built as a buffer green area to ensure the stability of residential space by preventing pollution, such as exhaust gas, noise, vibration, etc., of 1-21 lines as it is,);

According to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s land at the time of filing a tax appeal.

On August 14, 2006, the date of transfer of ownership is transferred to a Class 1 residential area by a public notice of ○○ City.

Until December 30, 2009, 3 years have passed since the implementation of the project, regardless of the plaintiff's intention, it constitutes reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, or the land of this case was finally incorporated into Class 1 residential area on August 14, 2006, and finally changed into Class 2 residential area on September 3, 2007. The date of transfer of this case's land (the date of December 30, 2009) shall be deemed as the date of incorporation into a residential area. Based on this, only the assertion that the land of this case falls within three years from the date of incorporation into a residential area, and there was no assertion that the land of this case was excluded from a residential area through the public notice of this case.

In the process of the instant lawsuit related to the determination of urban planning, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the ○○ High Court No. 2009Nu7709 and sought revocation of the disposal part of the instant real estate as a green area within the specific use area, not for seeking revocation of the disposal part of the instant real estate, which was designated as an urban planning facility (a scenic green area and road).

○ The Plaintiff was designated as a landscape green area and road from the cadastral publication drawings.

It is alleged that it means transport facilities or spatial facilities as infrastructure, not to alter the special-purpose area of a residential area, which means a residential area.

○ As alleged by the Plaintiff, if the instant land is designated as a green area, not a residential area, from a topographical map (Evidence A5), this would result in a substantial change in the decision of urban planning without going through a legitimate procedure for change of urban planning as seen in the Supreme Court Decision 9Du11851 Decided the front line. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation on this part also has no merit, taking into account the fact that it ought to be deemed null and void.

(3) Determination as to other Plaintiff’s assertion

According to Article 31(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the determination of an urban management plan takes effect on the date when the topographical map was publicly announced pursuant to Article 32(4) of the same Act, but the National Land Planning and Utilization Act was amended by Act No. 11922 on July 16, 2013, the determination of an urban management plan becomes effective on the date when the topographical map was publicly announced pursuant to Article 32(4) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and prior to the amendment, it becomes effective five days after the date when the announcement was made pursuant to Article 30(6) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act

3. Conclusion

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