The term "open land" which is held by a homeless person means the land which is not used for any purpose.

The term "open land" which is held by a homeless person means the land which is not used for any purpose, and where the land is leased for a parking lot, it does not fall under the case regardless of the lessee's income.

Scope of other land used for the business under Article 168-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 2, 2014 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance due to a consultation and division as of June 16, 1994, between OOO-dong 1697-15 and 565.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to OO on the ground of sale and purchase as of August 5, 2010.

B. Upon filing a transfer income tax return, the Plaintiff reported and paid the instant land without applying the special long-term holding deduction as land for non-business use. However, on March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction by applying the special long-term holding deduction under the premise that the instant land falls under the land for business use.

C. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that the instant land is leased for the parking lot (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant land satisfies the criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance as one parcel owned by one household which does not own a house, and thus, is excluded from the land for non-business, and thus constitutes a subject of special long-term holding deduction, the instant disposition by the Defendant is unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 104-3 (1) 4 (c) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11146, Jan. 1, 2012) provides that "land excluded from land for non-business purposes and directly related to the residence or business," and its detailed contents are delegated to the Presidential Decree. Article 168-11 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26302, Jun. 1, 2015) provides that "the land shall be determined by Presidential Decree." In particular, Article 168-1 (1) 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26302, Jun. 1, 2015) provides that "one parcel of land owned by one household which does not own a house and falling under the standard prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, taking into account whether it is possible to newly construct a house, and it refers to the land not

Furthermore, Article 83-4 (16) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, provides that "the land meeting the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, considering the possibility of new construction of a house, is not located in an area where new construction of a house is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the provisions of statutes

However, under the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstances, and it shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. Since Article 168-11 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and Article 83-4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act are individually listed on the grounds for exception that are excluded from non-business land, the land in this case must be deemed land for non-business use unless it falls under the grounds for exception under the above provision. However, it is reasonable to view that the land in Article 168-11 (1) 13 of the former Income Tax Act is one parcel of land owned by one household, which does not own a house that is in mind of new construction of a house, and it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and it is not used for any purpose as well as the requirements not falling

2) According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3, 1, 2, 3-1, 3-4, 4, and 5, as to the instant case, KimO registered as the trade name of "O parking lot" from the instant land on January 4, 2006, and operated the parking lot. KimO reported the closure of business on November 15, 2010, which is the day before the completion of the registration of ownership transfer in the OO, after the Plaintiff registered as the trade name of "O parking lot", the OO operated the instant land on the instant land and transferred the instant land to OOOOOO, and the report on the closure of business is made, and the OOOO did not constitute an exception to each of the instant land being used for non-business purposes, as it does not constitute an exception to each of the instant land.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful.

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.