In order to obtain an exemption from special surtax under Article 57 (1) 5 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, a land transferor who is not an applicant for exemption from special surtax under Article 57 (3) of the same Act fails to request a correction of an applicant for exemption from the application for exemption for about two years. In addition, the application is rejected and the special surtax is imposed on the transfer of the above land, the principle of trust and good faith,

The provisions on tax reduction and exemption should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the principle of tax equity, and even if the head of tax office did not accept the application and imposed special surtax on the transfer of the land within the base development zone under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act, it cannot be deemed that the head of tax office clearly determined the exemption of special surtax on the ground that the land, etc. in the base development zone was transferred to the project implementer of the relevant base development zone under Article 57 (1) 5 and (3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989) is subject to the exemption of special surtax within the prescribed period of time. However, even if the project implementer completes the relevant industrial base development project within the period of Article 57 (2) of the same Act, the special surtax should not be exempted unless there is any objection to the application. Thus, even if the head of tax office did not request the applicant to correct the application for exemption for the transfer of the above land for about two years, the head of tax office did not have clearly determined the exemption.

Article 57 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989); Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 18 of the same Act

Korea Heavy Industries Corporation

The Head of the Maternization Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 55,004,790 against the Plaintiff on March 15, 1989 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. On March 15, 1989, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff for tax exemption of KRW 1,67, KRW 1,50 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had no dispute between the parties; (b) No. 2, No. 3, No. 4-1, and No. 4-1, No. 7; (c) 2, No. 3,5 (Application Form for Tax Exemption); and (d) No. 7, No. 4, 7 (Public Notice of Change to Industrial Base Development), No. 7, No. 1, and No. 1, No. 96-1, No. 7, and No. 444, which were assigned to the Plaintiff; and (d) No. 1, No. 97, No. 7, and No. 1, No. 7, and No. 97, No. 1, the Plaintiff acquired the same tax base of KRW 5, No. 7, and No. 2, No. 97, an industrial complex Development Project.

2. The defendant asserts that the above taxation disposition is legitimate, and the plaintiff's transfer of land, etc. within the base development zone under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act to the relevant base development zone operator under Article 57 (3) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that the special surtax shall be exempted only when the relevant project operator files an application for exemption, but the plaintiff mistakenly knew that the transferor of land, etc. who is the person liable to pay special surtax should apply for exemption, and accepted the exemption decision. If the defendant did not make the correction of the plaintiff's application for exemption, the plaintiff could be exempted from special surtax by allowing the above base development zone operator to apply for exemption. Since the plaintiff's exemption decision did not require the correction, the plaintiff's cancellation of the exemption decision and the above exemption decision are trusted by the above non-party company and the non-party Korean professional development company to whom the above base development zone operator was located, and thus, the defendant's revocation of the exemption decision and the above exemption decision in this case's revocation of the exemption decision in this case's 80th of the above special surtax and the above exemption decision were unlawful.

Therefore, Article 57 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that capital gains tax or special surtax shall be exempted for any income accruing from the transfer of land for public projects falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Paragraph 5 of the same Article provides that the relevant base development zone operator shall transfer the land within the base development zone pursuant to the Industrial Bases Development Promotion Act, and Paragraph 3 of the same Article provides that the pertinent project operator shall apply only if it is applied under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 47 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1280 of December 30, 1989) provides that the defendant's application for exemption of special surtax shall not be deemed to have violated the above provision of Article 57 (3) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and that the defendant's application for exemption of special surtax shall not be deemed to have been rejected by the plaintiff within the time limit of the transfer date of the pertinent land for the taxable year to which the date of transfer belongs. Thus, the plaintiff's application for exemption of special surtax cannot be interpreted to the transfer date.

3. Therefore, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is legitimate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)