early 209 Heavy2973 ( October 30, 2009)

Farmland in an urban area shall be deemed land for non-business use.

A disposition that is imposed by applying the actual transaction price to land for non-business regardless of whether the land is in an urban area from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 249,478,160 on the Plaintiff on January 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1988. 6. 13. 인천 남동구 BB동 397-2 답 2.158㎡(이하 이 사건 토지라 하고, 위 토지는 그 후 같은 동 397-2, 397-4, 397-5로 분할되었다)를 취득하고, 2006. 4. 18. 같은 동 397-4 답 189㎡를 차AA에게, 2006. 4. 26. 같은 동 397-2, 397-5 답 1,969㎡를 주식회사 @@에게 각 양도하면서 2006. 5. 12. 기준시가에 의하여 양도차익 을 산정하여 양도소득세 예정신고ㆍ납부하였다.

B. On January 5, 2009, the Defendant deemed the instant land as land for non-business use and calculated gains from transfer as the actual transaction price, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 249,478,160 for transfer income tax reverted to year 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff on or before December 31, 2009 after re- village and self-defense for 18 years. As such, the instant land constitutes farmland at the time of immigration farming under Article 83-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 6 (2) 5 of the Farmland Act and shall not be deemed land for non-business use even if it is farmland within an urban

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

According to Article 96 and Article 96 (2) 8 of the Income Tax Act, the transfer value of land for non-business even before December 31, 2006 shall be calculated based on the actual transaction value. According to Article 104-3 (1) (b) of the same Act, farmland in an urban area provided for in the National Land Planning and Utilization Act shall be viewed as land for non-business, and in cases of farmland falling under non-business land due to the prohibition of use due to the provisions of law after acquiring land under paragraph (2) of the same Article or due to other unavoidable reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it may not be considered as land for non

According to Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act and Article 83-5(3)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which is based on Article 168-14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 83-5(3)2 of the same Act, the land owned by the person who moved to farming before December 2006 as farmland owned at the time of the moving farming is not regarded as land for non-business due to inevitable reasons.

The above Enforcement Rule shall be interpreted and applied on the premise of the Income Tax Act as the mother corporation. According to Article 104-3 (1) 1 (b), which is the relevant provision of the mother law, it is clear that farmland in the urban area is defined as the land for non-business regardless of whether it is re- village or self-arable. Thus, even in applying Article 83-5 (3) 2 of the above Enforcement Rule, it shall be interpreted that the farmland in the urban area shall not be regarded as the ground for non

Since there is no dispute over the land in the urban area from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer, there is no illegality in the disposition of this case where capital gains tax is imposed by applying the actual transaction price.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.