The distance of 20 kilometers, which is the requirement for the re-village, refers to the straight distance of 20 kilometers.

When interpreting the distance as a long distance, it is different to determine the criteria and methods for measuring the distance, such as the size of the road, or whether it falls under idle land due to the construction, abolition, etc. of the road, which is contrary to the principle of strict interpretation of the tax law. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that it means a straight line.

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

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21415 Delivered on October 13, 1995

1. The defendant's disposition of imposing KRW 57,887,530 on the plaintiff on April 1, 1992 shall be revoked on April 1, 1992. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

"The land of this case" is the land of five parcels as indicated in the annexed list, which the plaintiff acquired between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1986, and held as of December 31, 1990 (hereinafter "the land of this case"), "the defendant", "the land excess of five parcels", "the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4177 of Dec. 31, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter "former Act") and "the above disposition of this case") No. 1 and No. 2 of this case", "the above disposition of this case is legitimate or legitimate as of Apr. 1, 1992 by considering the idle land falling under Article 8 (1) 5 (a) of the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 199; hereinafter "the above disposition of this case") and evidence No. 12 of this case.

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the grounds of the above grounds of disposition and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

"즉, 원고와 원고의 남편 김ㅇㅇ는 이 사건 토지를 취득한 후 계속하여 이를 자경하여 왔고, 1982. 2. 3. 이래 원고와 김ㅇㅇ는 이 사건 토지 소재지와 같은 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동에 전입하여 주민등록까지 하고 그곳에 거주하였으며, 1992. 2. 21. 주민등록이 직권말소된 일이 있기는 하지만 그 직후인 같은 달 28일 주민등록 재등록을 하고 현재까지 위 주소지에 거주하고 있고, 가사 원고가 위 ㅇㅇ동 4번지에는 주민등록만을 해 두고 실제로는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 289번지(이하ㅇㅇ동집'이라 한다)에 거주하였다 하더라도, 위 ㅇㅇ동 집은 이 사건 토지로부터 20킬로미터 이내에 위치하고 있으므로, 어느 경우이든 이 사건 토지는 소유자가 농지소재지에 거주하고 있는 농지에 해당하므로 결국 이 사건 토지는 원고가 재촌자경하는 농지로서 토지초과이득세의 과세대상인 유휴토지에서 제외되는 것임에도 피고는 이를 과세대상에 해당하는 것으로 보고 이 사건 처분을 하였으니 이는 위법한 것이다.",나. 법령의 규정

Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the above provision shall be applied in principle to the following cases: (a) if the former Enforcement Decree of the Act, which was enforced as of the end of the taxable period, entered into force on Jul. 29, 1994; and (b) the Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the Act, are amended to remove or improve unconstitutional elements pointed out in the above decision; and (c) Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1000, Jan. 26, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree No. 2 of the Act") provides that the above provision shall be applied to the land excess of the farmland that occurred from idle land, etc.; and (d) Article 8 provides for the scope of the taxable period of the farmland excess of the farmland that the owner actually owns within the same area as the farmland.

C. Determination

(1) 그러므로 이 사건 처분의 과세기간 종료일 현재 원고가 이 사건 토지 소재지에 재촌하면서 자경함으로써 토지초과이득세의 비과세요건을 갖추고 있었는지에 관하여 살피건대, 갑제6호증의 1・2, 갑제12・13호증의 각 1, 갑제16호증, 갑제18 내지 21호증, 갑제23호증, 을제2호증의 1, 을제3호증의 1・2・4・5, 을제6호증의 1내지 6의 각 기재와 증인 김ㅇㅇ의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1984. 5. 30. 종전 주소지인 ㅇㅇ시 남구 ㅇㅇ동 289번지에서 이 사건 토지가 위치한 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 4번지 (당시는 ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ면 ㅇㅇ리 4번지였으나 1989. 1. 1. ㅇㅇ시로 편입되었다)로 남편과 함께 주민등록상의 전입신고를 하였으나, 실제로는 종전 주소지인 ㅇㅇ동 집에서 계속 거주해 온 사실, 위 ㅇㅇ동 집에서 이 사건 토지까지는 직선거리로 약 16.5 내지 18.5킬로미터 정도인 사실, 원고는 원래 공유수면매립지인 이 사건 토지를 매수한 이후 남편 김ㅇㅇ와 함께 토양의 염분을 제거하고 저수지 및 배수시설을 갖추고 지하수를 개발하는 등 상당한 투자를 하여 위 ㅇㅇ동 집에서 왕래하면서 사람을 고용하거나 직접 농사일을 하면서 이 사건 토지를 경작해 온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 갑제2・4호증, 갑제5호증의 2의 각 기재는 믿지 아니하고, 달리 반증이 없다.

(2) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff continued to own the instant land while residing in the area located within 20 kilometers of the instant land during the instant taxable period. Thus, the instant land should be excluded from idle land subject to the land excess profit tax pursuant to the above provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes (the Defendant shall interpret 20 kilometers of the distance between the location of the land and the place of residence as stipulated in Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree, not the straight line, but the so-called long-term distance, which means the passage distance through land, sea, etc., not the straight line, and the Plaintiff’s place of residence exceeds 20 kilometers of the flow distance from the Plaintiff’s place of residence to the point of residence, so the instant land does not meet the requirements of the village to be excluded from the idle land. However, Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree provides that if the distance from the farmland to the owner’s place of residence meets the requirements of the said new road to the point of view of whether the above land constitutes a new distance of passage through the farmland lease, the above provision of Article 23(2).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

October 10, 1996