early 201J 3109 ( October 28, 2012)

For the year for which approval of a forest management plan is not obtained, the exception criteria are applied.

It is against the intent of the provisions of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act as well as excessively expanded interpretation of the requirements for tax reduction and exemption beyond the limit of the language and text thereof without reasonable grounds to apply the forest land under commencement with the authorization of the forest management plan to the year in which the forest management plan is not authorized, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

2012Guhap1896 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for rectification of global income tax

EAA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

November 13, 2012

January 15, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on March 7, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 15, 1971 through August 4, 1978, the Plaintiff acquired and retained O00 and 4 potal Do-dong, Suwon-si, OO00 and on the ground of inheritance, and transferred it to a third party on March 26, 2010, and on May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a transfer income tax return without applying the special long-term holding deduction by deeming the said forest as the land for non-business use.

B. On January 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of global income tax with the purport that the Plaintiff would request the Defendant to refund KRW 15,512,010,000 calculated by applying the special deduction for long-term holding (hereinafter referred to as “the instant forest”) out of the said forest constituted the land for business, whereas the Defendant rejected the said request for rectification (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant forest constitutes the land for non-business use on March 7, 2011.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on August 19, 2011, and on February 28, 2012

The claim was dismissed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff argues that the disposition of this case by the defendant rejecting the plaintiff's request for correction of global income tax on the premise that the forest of this case constitutes non-business land under the following different premise: (1) the forest of this case is a forest under the project with the approval of the forest management plan, and (2) the forest of this case was designated as a forestry promotion area and preservation mountainous district after acquisition; and (3) the forest of this case was prohibited or restricted by the law after acquisition.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 104-3 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 168-6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22391, Sep. 20, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), where the actual status of land classification is forest and land being owned for five years or more, and where the period of ownership is more than two years in the five years immediately preceding the transfer date, the more than one year in the three years immediately preceding the transfer date, and where the land is not used directly for residence or business during the period exceeding 20/100 of the period of ownership of the land, it constitutes land for non-business in principle, excluding those used directly for residence or business, and subparagraph 2 (a) of Article 104-3 (1) of the Income Tax Act, and subparagraph 2 of Article 168-9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and subparagraph 14 of the same Act.

(2) Whether the forest of this case constitutes a forest under commencement after obtaining authorization for a forest management plan

As the principle of no taxation without law prevents the requirements for taxation, non-taxation, or tax exemption, and interpretation of tax laws is prohibited in the interpretation of the law as long as there are no special circumstances, and it is also consistent with the principle of fair taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 209). Article 13 of the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act (amended by Act No. 9961, Jan. 25, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that the period of 10 years should be more than 10 years, and that the period of 10 years should be more than 9 years be more than 10 years, and that the period of 2 years should be more than 10 years be more than 10 years, and that the forest management plan should be more than 10 years more than 9 years more than 10 years more than 10 years more than 9 years more than the aforementioned forest management plan.

(3) Whether the forest land of this case constitutes land prohibited or restricted by the law

The original purpose of forest use is to protect and foster forests, so long as it is not limited, and it does not constitute land the use of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the laws and regulations stipulated in Article 104-3 (2) of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-14 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act merely because there are other legal restrictions (e.g., the legal restrictions that prohibit the conversion of forest, and forest into a housing site or commercial site) into forest land. This case is designated as a forestry promotion area on November 24, 191, and this case is designated as a preserved mountainous district on December 30, 202, and the forest is designated as a preserved mountainous district on December 30, 200, but it is not limited to the protection and development of forest for the original purpose of use of forest land, and it does not constitute land the use of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the laws and regulations. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.