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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014, shall be revoked.

A. On November 15, 1988, the Plaintiff acquired ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 000 large 00.0 square meters (after this, ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 000 square meters divided into 00.0 square meters, such as ○-○○○○○○○, 000 square meters large 00 square meters, and hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

B. On June 15, 1978, the Plaintiff requested the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to purchase the instant key land pursuant to Article 47(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act on the ground that an urban planning facility project has not been implemented within 10 years since the designation and announcement of the instant key land as a road for urban planning facilities.

C. On November 4, 2010, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the Plaintiff of his decision to purchase the instant land at issue, and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereafter on September 24, 2013 by purchasing the instant land from the Plaintiff on the basis of the appraised value of KRW 000,000,000 (=00 million x0.00 m2) and on the same day. On January 1, 2014, the officially assessed land price of the instant land at issue is KRW 0,00,000 per square meter.

D. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 of transfer income tax to the Defendant on the ground that the transfer of the instant land constitutes the transfer of land for public services under Article 77(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12251, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).

E. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax 0,000,000,000,000) for the transfer of the pertinent land did not constitute the transfer of land for public works under Article 77(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 8, 11 to 13, Eul 2 (including provisional numbers)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff transferred the key land of this case to Seoul Special Metropolitan City as it is for the purpose of the public service. The transfer income of the key land of this case constitutes income generated from the transfer of land, etc. necessary for public service projects to which the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects applies to the executor of the public service projects, and thus, it cannot be excluded from the application of Article 77(1)1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that there is no public notice of project approval. Therefore, the transfer of the key land of this case is subject to the reduction of transfer income tax under Article

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it would be inconsistent with the principle of fair taxation with the strict interpretation of the provisions that can be clearly viewed as preferential provisions among the requirements for tax exemption or exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du731, Apr. 12, 2002).

Article 77 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a certain amount of tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accrued before December 31, 2015, which is derived from the transfer of land, etc. to a public project operator who is subject to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, from the date of the public project approval (the date of transfer where the land is transferred before the public project approval) to the public project area to which the land belongs. In light of such legal principles, it is apparent that Article 77 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a certain amount of tax shall be applied to the income derived from the transfer of land, etc. before December 31, 2015, which is subject to the transfer of land to a public project operator who is subject to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor. It is not clear that the transfer of the land to the Special Metropolitan City Mayor for the purpose of the transfer of land to the public project area.

3. Conclusion

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