(a) Definition of “actual land category” under the provisions of Article 44(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; and

B. Whether only the land on which a building exists on the ground should be seen as a site (negative)

(a) “ de facto land category” under the provisions of Article 44(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not required even to the land category of which is legally completed the procedure for changing the form and quality of land, registration conversion, etc., if the de facto land category, which can be classified according to the main purpose of use of land

B. It is not necessary to regard only the land on which a building is existing on the ground as the site.

(a) Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Cadastral Act; Article 44 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Cadastral Act; Article 5 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

Plaintiff

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu476 delivered on June 1, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the following facts based on the evidence of its judgment: 519 square meters of land site at the time when the plaintiff acquired it on August 27, 1966, but transferred to June 18, 1978 under Article 16 of Addenda of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 2705 of Dec. 24, 1974), only the land category in the cadastral record as of January 1, 1968, which was considered to be the time of acquisition, was a forest and field, and the plaintiff included a large amount of improvement expenses between the time from July 1, 1967 to October 1 of the same year, and determined the actual land category at the time, and calculated the acquisition value theory by considering that the actual land category was the actual land category at that time, and thus, the land category of the land transferred by the plaintiff on the ground of the proviso of Article 44 (2) of the Income Tax Act should be calculated as the forest land category on the cadastral record, which is not a land category change or an objective ground category.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)