Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Group-8792 (O3.02)

No one-time development of forest land to sell it in succession shall be deemed that real estate sales business or real estate development business is conducted.

(As in the first instance judgment, development activities of the instant land are deemed to have been conducted in a single manner, and they do not harm the alteration of the form and quality of the entire forest or any part of the said forest land transferred in 2013, and thus are not deemed to have been conducted as an industrial activity in which the value of the said forest is essentially increased.

Article 97 of the Income Tax Act / Article 163 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2018Nu40838 Demanding revocation of a disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

Park*

O Head of tax office

March 2, 2017

June 12, 2018

July 3, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection of a request for correction as to capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on June 28, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, and thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ It is difficult to conduct three at the bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, with the following addition:

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the business feasibility can be recognized since the Plaintiff obtained a total transfer margin of KRW 000,000,000 as the above series of sale activities. However, the Plaintiff did not acquire and resell the land for the purpose of profit-making, such as acquisition of transfer margin from the beginning, for a long period of time, not

The sale is merely a sale, and the above transfer margin seems to have a main cause to increase the price during the land holding period of approximately 25 years, and therefore, it cannot be determined whether the above transfer margin is business feasibility only with the above transfer margin).

○ It is difficult to add the following contents to the following: 4.12 ...................

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s act should be recognized as a real estate development act that enhances the utility value of the land on July 11, 2016, on the ground that the land category of 177 square meters of ○○○○○-○ Forest is changed to a site on July 11, 2016. According to the evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land category of the said land was changed from forest land to a site, but it is recognized that the said land was transferred in 2014, and that the said land was transferred in 2014, and that the land category of one parcel of the land partitioned and sold over 11 times was changed from the date of transfer, the Plaintiff’s business feasibility

○ The following shall be added to 6th written judgment of the first instance court, 6th '6th 'not':

(B) According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, notwithstanding the above construction works conducted by the Plaintiff, the officially assessed individual land price of the above forest has not been increased significantly)

○ 8 at the bottom of the 6th judgment of the first instance court, but the following is added:

In the absence of circumstances, such as: (a) the opening date of the instant forest was registered on January 1, 2013; and (b) the establishment of a separate place of business for the project or the employment of an employee at the time two years have elapsed after the sale of the said forest;

○ The following shall be added from 6th to 3rd below the judgment of the first instance.

[On the other hand, a decision was made by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 16, 2017 on the rejection of a request for correction regarding the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2014 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on October 16, 2017, but the said decision was related to the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2014, and thus, the said decision does not affect the said decision on the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2014.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.