1. The Defendant’s transfer income tax amounting to KRW 145,006,00 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 14, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired CY 660 square meters and D 1,833 square meters in the Yangju-si located within the land transaction permission zone. On February 5, 2008, the Plaintiff divided E 576 square meters from D 1,833 square meters, and on February 21, 2008, transferred C 60 square meters and E 576 square meters before E (hereinafter “instant land”). At that time, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax to the Defendant.

B. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that the instant land was trusted to B, and reported and paid the transfer income tax on the premise that the instant land was a business land to B.

C. However, as a result of the tax investigation of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff following the transfer of the instant land conducted from March 2, 2016 to March 31, 2016, the Defendant deemed that the instant land constituted non-business land because the Plaintiff was not a self-owned land. On July 1, 2016, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 145,006,000 (including additional tax) of capital gains tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Nos. 1, 2, and 32 Nos. 1 to 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The exclusion period of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land, which was the expiration date of the filing period of the tax base, is from May 31, 2009 to May 31, 2016. Therefore, the instant disposition ought to be deemed null and void as it was a disposition for which the exclusion period of imposition has expired. 2) Since the acquisition of the instant land, the instant land was directly conducted on the instant land since the acquisition of the instant land, and thus, the instant land ought to be deemed land for business.

Therefore, it goes on a different premise.