The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the land of this case constitutes non-business land on the grounds that it cannot be deemed as falling under “forest” under Article 104-3 (1) 2 (a) of the former Income Tax Act, Article 104-3 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and Article 168-14 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”), and Article 168-9 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on

2. The term “land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by statutes” under Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to land, the use of which is particularly restricted beyond the ordinary limit according to its use. This includes not only the land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted directly by statutes itself, but also the land, the use of which is practically prohibited or restricted by an administrative agency as part of administrative action,

In addition, the issue of whether to restrict the use of land according to the original purpose of use shall be based on the principle, and the purpose of acquisition and actual use of land and the possibility of changing the original purpose of use shall also be determined individually.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Du14425 Decided October 31, 2013). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is the first instance judgment.