Where forest land and forest trees are transferred together, the transfer of forest trees shall not be deemed business income if there is no feasibility of forestry.

Where forest land and forest trees are transferred together, the transfer of forest trees shall not be deemed business income on the grounds that no business registration for forestry was made from the beginning and no forest trees are preserved and steamed in the standing timber register, and there is no special provision on forest trees in the sales contract.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of KRW 192,983,201 for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2007 against the plaintiff on February 4, 2009 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff sold 11,504 square meters of forest land in ○○○○-si, ○○○○○-si, ○○○○○, 245 square meters of forest land in 11,504 square meters of forest land in 248 square meters of forest land in 1.1 billion won in 1.1 billion won in 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid capital gains tax of 203,205,400 won to the Defendant on November 2, 2007.

B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the amount of capital gains tax to be paid as KRW 203,205,40,222,199, respectively, on the ground that the income from the transfer of each forest of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”) was calculated and paid as capital gains in whole, even though the income from the transfer of each forest of this case constituted business income pursuant to Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the amount of capital gains tax to be paid as KRW 659,67,160,57,160, 58, and the amount of tax to be paid as capital

C. On February 4, 2009, Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act applies to cases where the Plaintiff can calculate the total amount of revenue by keeping the business feasibility with the forest transaction. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff does not fall under the case, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 13, 2009 on April 23, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 18, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 3, and 7 (including virtual numbers)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the Plaintiff operated a afforestation project, such as growing young trees, in each forest of this case around 1997, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff engaged in growing forest at the time of transferring each forest of this case. Therefore, income related to the transfer of each forest of this case by the Plaintiff should be divided into capital gains, and income from the transfer of forest should be assessed separately and imposed as business income.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Business income is income generated from a specific business and refers to social activities that are continuously and repeatedly conducted in an independent position for profit-making purposes. For business income to be recognized as business income, independence, profit-making nature, and continuity and happiness must be ensured. According to the provisions of Article 19 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) and the main sentence of Article 51(8) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the "income generated from the transfer of forest trees" is determined depending on whether the transfer was made as part of the business. However, in calculating the amount of income of the "business felling or transferring forest trees", it is clear that the purport of the transfer of forest trees does not include the income generated from the transfer of forest land in cases where the forest trees are transferred along with the forest land.

(2) In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the Plaintiff: (a) among each forest of this case from August 8, 1997 to November 25, 197, 200 square meters in 0,000 square meters in ○○○○-si, ○○○○○-si, 44,30 square meters in each forest of this case; (b) but did not engage in forestry or registered its business; (c) the forest of this case did not have any ownership preservation registration in accordance with the Standing timber Act on the standing timber register; and (d) the sales contract written between the Plaintiff and the non-party company on each forest of this case has any special agreement on the cemetery site; and (e) the transfer of the forest of this case does not have any specific content on the forest of this case without any specific content on the forest of this case. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer of the forest of this case satisfies the essential nature of the business, independence and continuity of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.