Where the use is restricted for factual or economic reasons other than legal restrictions, it shall not be excluded from the non-business land.

Where non-permission disposition is revoked after the application for permission for development activities and the result of the lawsuit therefor, the period of non-permission for development activities (from the date of the non-permission disposition for development activities until the date of the cancellation of non-permission disposition) is excluded from non-business land for the period during which the use under the law is limited, and the remaining period is not limited.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on January 28, 2009 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 17, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired the land of 2,510,000 square meters in total from ○○○○○○-si ○○○○○, 266 square meters in 197, 2,344 square meters in 197, 57-12 miscellaneous land, 2,017 square meters in 2,30,000 square meters in 2,517 (hereinafter “instant land”) from her husband, Kim Jong-do, 197, and transferred the land of this case to ○○○○○○-si, ○○○, ○○○-si, her husband, to 2,510,00,000 square meters in total.

B. The Plaintiff paid the transfer value of KRW 2,510,00,000 and the acquisition value of KRW 261,025,100 as transfer income tax and KRW 523,380,250 calculated by applying the general tax rate as transfer income tax, but paid the full amount after deducting the special deduction for long-term holding from the special deduction for long-term holding on May 27, 2008, by excluding the special deduction for long-term holding and deducting the tax amount calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate.

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reduction and correction on the ground that the permit for reduction was limited by the law from the date of acquisition to the date of transfer of the land for non-business use, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be seen as land for non-business use. However, according to Article 83-5 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 15 of Apr. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same), the Defendant issued the instant disposition rejecting the claim for reduction and correction on the ground that the period during which the instant land was used for business use does not meet the period of time to constitute the land for business use as of January 10, 2009, on the ground that it did not meet the period of time to constitute the land for business use.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's principal

The instant land is a hunting zone for habitual flood damage area promoted by Gyeongnam-do, and actually functions as a reservoir for controlling the internal waters in the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY Y YY YY Y YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply), the term "land for non-business" means land falling under any of the following subparagraphs during the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree during which the relevant land is owned, excluding land for which property tax is exempted or exempted, land for which separate aggregate or separate taxation is carried out, land for which there are reasonable grounds to recognize that it is directly related to residence or business in consideration of the status of use of land and the amount of income, etc. (paragraph (1)). In applying the provisions of paragraph (1), in cases where land falls under the category of land for which the prohibition of use due to the provisions of law after its acquisition or other inevitable reasons prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it may not be deemed as land for non-business use as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (paragraph (2) of the same Article), and the period exceeding 104-3 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act or the period exceeding 208 years before the immediately preceding year.

(2) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret that the provision of tax reduction and exemption is clearly preferential in the provision of tax reduction and exemption requirements.

In light of the above legal principles, in case where land other than the land in this case, is not a land directly related to residence or business in consideration of the situation of the use of the land, the amount of revenue, etc., and there are considerable reasons to recognize that the use of the land in this case is not a land directly related to residence or business, such land constitutes a land for non-business use if the land meets the period criteria under Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, but the prohibition of or restriction on use due to the provisions of law after the acquisition of the land or there are other unavoidable reasons, i.e., in the case of restrictions under the law due to public interest or inevitable reasons, the application for permission, etc. related to the business in this case after the acquisition of the land, but the building permission is limited by the Building Act or the administrative guidance, and the use of the land is not a reason to restrict

(3) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), the instant land is located in the neighboring area of △△cheon-si, and the water flowing from △△cheon-do is located in the lower land without any specific waterway, and the construction of the instant land should be done before △△cheon-do, △△-si, △△△△-si, △△△△-si, △△△△-si, △△△-si, △△-si, △△-si, and △△-si, △△-si, △△△-si, △△-si, which was located in the lower land, was not allowed to use the instant land for a limited period of 0 years, and the Plaintiff’s application for the development permit was not allowed to use the instant land for a limited period of 1,000,0000 for the purpose of preventing flood damage. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s application for development permit was rejected.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for rectification of reduction on the ground that the period of restriction on use under the above Act does not exceed the period of time under Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is lawful, and the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.