Seoul Administrative Court 2008Gudan4483 ( December 21, 2009)

early 2007west3754 ( December 17, 2007)

Whether use is limited non-business land

In accordance with the measures taken by the head of a local government, restrictions on the construction of buildings, etc. on land in accordance with the measures of the head of a local government, but no restrictions are imposed on farmland cultivation.

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's revocation of the reduction of the capital gains tax of KRW 269,636,856, the capital gains tax of KRW 450,604, the capital gains tax of KRW 453,450,604, and the capital gains tax of KRW 577,728,650, each of the reduction of the capital gains tax of KRW 577,728,650 against the plaintiff's non-B.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasons for the instant case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additions, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(b) the addition;

The following should be added to the 6th sentence of the first instance court which did not have any restriction.

“(In the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs either changed the form and quality of each of the instant land or attempted or made any effort to build a new building on each of the instant land until they were transferred after the donation of the instant land. Even if there was a measure to restrict the construction permission, the use of the instant land as farmland was not prohibited or restricted. As such, the mere fact that there was a measure to restrict the construction permission, as alleged by the Plaintiff, does not constitute a special prohibition or restriction of the use of each of the instant land beyond the ordinary limit according to its use.”

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.