Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan9495 ( October 7, 2011)

Board of Audit and Inspection 201 depth010 ( October 13, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that he is operating a growing forest.

In light of the fact that only the land is written in the subject matter of the sale contract, that the property value of the big tree in which the growing business was conducted, and that the forest is not registered or that there is no method to write a name, etc., it is difficult to view that the growing business was continuously and repeatedly conducted for profit-making purposes, and to recognize that the forest trees are transferred as separate from the forest land to the subject matter of sale.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act

Article 19 of the Income Tax Act

2011Nu36717 Revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

XX

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan9495 decided September 7, 2011

May 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the above part, as stated in Paragraph (2) above. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Parts in height:

In Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A" in the Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance means "B".

In addition, the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second to 6th.7.

Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above facts of recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, 15, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including various numbers), as follows.

① 원고는 이 사건 임야에 잣나무 3,000본을 식재하였으나, 2010. 12. 2. 감사원의 출장결과보고서에 의하면, 이 사건 임야에 잣나무 132주만이 남아있는 것으로 조사되었고, 남아있는 잣나무 중 흉고직경이 6cm 이하인 치수(雅樹, 어린 나무)가 127주이고, 흉고직경이 6-14cm인 잣나무는 5주에 불과한 것으로 보아, 원고가 영리를 목적으로 3,000본의 잣나무를 계속적으로 가꾸고, 보호하는 잣나무의 육림업에 종사하였다고 보기 어렵다.

② In 198, the Plaintiff planted KRW 000, local expenses of KRW 000, and KRW 000,000, from around 1998 to around 2002. From around 1998 to around 2002, the Plaintiff carried out pooling work of KRW 000 and KRW 000,000 for 5 years. From around 2006, the Plaintiff carried out the project for growing young trees at KRW 000 and KRW 000 for 3,000 for 3,000 for 3,000 for profit-making purposes. However, it is difficult to view that the expenses incurred in growing young trees, excluding expenses incurred in growing big trees, were more than 100,00 for 10 years. Since 203, the Plaintiff did not have spent expenses for growing big trees.

③ The contract of sale prepared by the Plaintiff while selling the forest of this case to B is indicated as the special agreement that “no tree planted on the present local level shall be punished against Han Mando.” However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff sold the forest of this case to a buyer with a separate sale object, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the forest of this case and the forest of this case is not the standard tree that the Plaintiff engaged in growing, but the bamboo trees with a strong diameter of 6 cm or less, and that the property value is insignificant, and that the ownership is transferred to the buyer in accordance with the land unless there are special circumstances, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the forest of this case, and that the tree of this case was sold to a buyer with a separate sale object.

④ The Plaintiff, while selling the forest land in this case at KRW 000 and reporting the transfer income tax, calculated the selling price of the forest in this case as the standard market price and reported the transfer income tax as the business income from the transfer of forest trees, and reported the remainder of KRW 000,000 except for the sale price. As seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff engaged in growing forest, it is difficult to deem that the big tree in this case, which was in the forest in this case, has reached the value of KRW 130 million, by 30 million.

⑤ Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff continuously and repeatedly engaged in growing, growing and protecting trees in forests in order to produce forest trees for profit, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff sold the forest land of this case with the standard tree as a separate trading object in selling it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.