Whether the resident registration of the adjacent Si/Gun/Gu meets the resident registration requirements;

The plaintiff's land falls under the non-business land because the Daejeon Seo-gu and Chungcheongnam-gun did not have a direct contact with the Daejeon Seo-gu, and there was no direct contact between the two areas.

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 25,989,180 for the Plaintiff on January 5, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 2003, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased a forest land ○○○, ○○○-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, 12,828 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and cultivated the registration, and sold it to another person on June 29, 2007, and reported the transfer income tax for 2007 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax for 2007 from December 14, 1995 to 31-○○, Daejeon-dong (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s domicile”).

B. On January 5, 2008, the Defendant considered the land of this case as non-business land subject to heavy tax rate of 60% on the ground that the Plaintiff did not reside in the Si/Gun/Gu that is identical or adjacent to the land of this case, and imposed a correction of KRW 25,989,180 on the Plaintiff on January 5, 2008 (hereinafter the disposition of this case).

C. On January 7, 2008, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and requested to the Tax Tribunal for an inquiry, but was dismissed on May 2, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 168-8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008) (hereinafter the former Enforcement Decree) provides that "non-business land" in the main sentence of Article 103-3 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act is excluding farmland registered as a resident in the area of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the farmland and whose de facto resident is a self-employed person, which is located in the area of Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the farmland." However, the above provision is problematic within the applicable scope since the scope of "Gu adjacent Si/Gun/Gu" is unclear, and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008) was partially amended to add "where the resident registration is made in the area within 20 km from the farmland. When the above amendment applies to the plaintiff's domicile, the disposition of this case is unlawful since the land of this case is within 20 km.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

Article 168-8 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) Whether the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment is applied

Since the Enforcement Decree of the Amendment stipulates that the first transfer of assets after the enforcement of Article 3 of the Addenda (No. 20618, 2008.22, 2008.22) shall be applied from "the first transfer of assets after the enforcement of the Amendment", as long as the Plaintiff transferred the instant land on June 29, 2007, prior to the enforcement date of the Amendment, there

(2) Whether the application of the former Enforcement Decree does not constitute non-business land

According to the above evidence, there was no direct contact between Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gun, the Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Geumcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the seat of the instant land. Thus, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff resided with a resident registration in the same area as the location of the instant land, and there was no other evidence to support that the Plaintiff resided in the same area as the location of the instant land.

(3) The instant land constitutes non-business land, and thus, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.