The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the forest under commencement after the expiration of the period for authorization of forest management plan is not excluded from the subject of land excess profit tax.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that even if a forest is under commencement by the end of the taxable period after the expiration of the authorization period for forest management plan, such forest does not constitute a "forest under commencement with the authorization for forest management plan under the provisions of the Forestry Act" under Article 8 (1) 7 (d) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act that is excluded from idle land, etc. as of the end of the taxable period.

Article 8 (1) 7 (d) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Du-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu21780 delivered on February 29, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The court below held that the defendant's land excess profit and disposition is legitimate on the ground that the plaintiff's forest was not a "forest under commencement with an approval of forest management plan under the Forestry Act" from January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1986, and even if the plaintiff continued to be a commencement of the forest management plan under the Forestry Act after the expiration of the period of approval of forest management plan, such fact alone does not constitute a "forest under commencement with an approval of forest management plan under the Forestry Act" under Article 8 (1) 7 (d) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which is excluded from idle land, etc. as of the end of the above taxable period. In light of the relevant laws and regulations, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)