Suwon District Court 2009Guhap13642 (2010.09.02)

early 209 Heavy2156 (2009.07)

Where forest land and forest trees are transferred together, income classification;

As forest land and forest trees are transferred together, the transfer of forest trees is claimed as business income, but there is no fact that they were cut for business purposes prior to the transfer of forest land, there is no record of business registration, and there is no special agreement to treat the forest separately in the sales contract, and it is reasonable to view the transfer of forest land as the cost for the transfer of forest land.

2010Nu33742 Revocation of revocation of capital gains tax rectification

Park Gyeong-gu

OO Head of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap13642 Decided September 2, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 5, 2009 against the plaintiff on March 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows: (a) changing "related Acts and subordinate statutes" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance into "related Acts and subordinate statutes" and (b) changing the five pages into "related Acts and subordinate statutes", and (b) the corresponding sections are as stated in each corresponding section except for the dismissal as set forth in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Parts used for cutting.

We examine whether the plaintiff is engaged in growing, growing, and protecting industrial activities in forests in order to produce forest trees according to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification (Korean Standard Industrial Classification).

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 12 through 15, and Gap evidence Nos. 16-1 through 8, it is recognized that the facts of growing up to now, such as ASEAN, Kakasi, Kasi, and Bari, which were land before each forest of this case is divided, have been afforested in 1962, ECE Ri 80 Japan, which was land before each of the forest of this case was divided (In addition, the plaintiff, around 1975, has continued to conduct forest management activities, such as planting trees and preventing blight and harmful insects, and fire, while he has no evidence to acknowledge them).

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was equipped with an index for business feasibility, such as independence in the transfer of forest trees of this case or for profit-making purposes, in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 8 through 12 (including various numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings.

① The Plaintiff was engaged in real estate rental business from May 20, 200 to October 25, 2002, and from May 26, 2003 to the present date, and did not cut down or transfer forest trees for business purposes prior to the transfer of each forest land of this case.

② There is no special agreement between the Plaintiff and each purchaser of forest land of this case to treat the forest trees of this case separately in a sales contract prepared between them.

③ The certificate of completion of report on real estate transactions with respect to each forest of this case is written as "land (land only transaction)".

This part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.