8. Self-Governing farmland

Since the instant seven project districts are deemed to be a separate project district, they do not fall under a large-scale development project district because more than one million square meters are more than one million square meters, and since the instant land was transferred after three years have elapsed since it was incorporated into a residential area, it does not constitute a self-farmland for eight years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On December 1, 2003, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 32,338,340 against Non-Party ○○○○○○ on December 1, 203.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court was conducted with respect to this case is as follows, the "attached entry" in Section 4, Section 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "attached Acts and subordinate statutes", and Section 4, Section 4 (d) of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for each dismissal as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2

2. Determination

(a) Provisions and purport of the capital gains tax reduction or exemption;

According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003 of Dec. 30, 2003) and the proviso of Article 66(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18207 of Dec. 30, 2003), where farmland has been cultivated for not less than 8 years between the time of acquisition of the farmland and the time of transfer thereof, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted, but where farmland has been cultivated for not less than 8 years, it shall also be excluded from capital gains tax reduction or exemption. However, in cases of farmland located in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si, and for which 3 years have elapsed from the date of its incorporation into those areas, such as a large-scale development project area (referring to one development project area, the project approval of which is the same project approval area), such as the area (referring to one project execution area), in which the project execution area is larger than the scale determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

Therefore, farmland subject to exceptional reduction or exemption related to a large-scale development project area shall be located in the large-scale development project area whose project area is more than the scale as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (1.00.00 cubic meters), and (2) The purpose of the above provision is to prevent disadvantages that may be caused to taxpayers of capital gains tax if the reduction or exemption period (3 years) expires without any cause attributable to landowners due to the project implementation or the delay in compensation as incorporated within the large-scale development project area in a residential area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act and incorporated within the large-scale development project area as a result of the project implementation or the delay in compensation by phase.

B. Determination on whether capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted

In order for the transfer of the instant land to be subject to reduction of capital gains tax, first, it should be examined whether the land readjustment project area of ○○ District in which the instant land belongs corresponds to the large development project area under the proviso of Article 66 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

○○○ City 00 project district is divided into seven separate project districts ( XX 1, XX 2, X, X, 60 cubic meters; 4,798, and 680 cubic meters are the same as the project district 195, 11, 17. XX 1, XX 2, and XX 3 project district is the project district 0 project district 0. The project district 00 project district 20 square meters adjacent to the above project district 00 project district 20 project district 0. The project district 200 project district 0 project district 0. The project district 200 project district 20 square meters 20 square meters and 00 square meters are the project district 20 project district 0 project district 0. The project district 200 square meters and 0. The project district 200 square meters and 0. The project district 200 square meters and 20. The project district 200 square meters and 200 square meters are the project district 20.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the land of this case is farmland incorporated into a residential area within the development project area is without merit without examining further matters.

C. Determination on whether the principle of protection of trust has been violated

(1) As alleged by the Plaintiffs, even if there are cases where the International Tribunal has acknowledged the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax in cases where the land was transferred after the lapse of 3 years from the date of incorporation into a residential area with respect to the above 7 business districts for one’s own farmland for more than 8 years since the date of incorporation into a residential area as to the land district determination project, it is difficult to view that the tax authority decided not to impose any tax on certain land over a long-term period or expressed its opinion on the individual taxpayer with special circumstances, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s act of this case contrary to the reduction or exemption measures taken by the National Tax Tribunal

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(2) At the time of July 31, 2003, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant or the International Tribunal judged the same case as the instant land subject to reduction and exemption, and that the alteration of the view subsequent thereto would violate the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

However, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition on the basis of changes in the judgment of specific facts when the tax liability is not extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.