The case holding that it constitutes land subject to the special long-term holding deduction under Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act in cases where construction restrictions, such as restrictions on use, etc., have been imposed because it was designated as Class 1 aesthetic district under Article 164 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice after the acquisition of land, and it was designated as an urban design district under subparagraph 53 of the same announcement at the

The case holding that it is a land subject to the special long-term holding deduction under Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act in case where construction restrictions, such as restrictions on use, have been imposed because it was designated as a Class 1 aesthetic district under Article 164 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice after the acquisition of land, and it was designated as an urban design district under Article 53 of the same public notice at the time,

Article 23(2)2 of the Income Tax Act; Article 46-3 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 18-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Elimination by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of March 6, 1991)

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2624 delivered on July 7, 1992

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the following facts based on the following facts: (a) on November 25, 1975, the plaintiff acquired a city size of 283.8 square meters from Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), Gangnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted), 283.8 square meters (hereinafter “the site of this case”); (b) on August 25, 1990, the site of this case is within the commercial area with the designation of Class 1 aesthetic district from No. 164 as of April 22, 1982 as the land within the commercial area; (c) on February 4, 1987, it cannot be constructed solely because it was designated as the urban design district as the HH district as of February 53, 1987; and (d) ( Address 4 omitted); (d) the plaintiff made efforts to jointly construct adjacent land with the owner of the land, but no agreement between the owner of the land and the owner of the adjacent land should be reached the transfer of the site of this case without any evidence.

(2) In full view of Article 23(2)2 of the Income Tax Act, Article 46-3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190), and Article 18-3(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1848 of Mar. 6, 191), the transfer of a site without a building shall be deemed as impeding efficient use of the land even if the period of possession exceeds five years, and thus, the special long-term holding deduction shall be excluded in principle by treating the land in question as the land in question where the construction and use are prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes after the acquisition of the land, and if there are reasons for prohibiting or restricting the construction and use of the land in question as of the date of transfer, it shall not be deemed that the special long-term holding deduction should be made within the boundary of the land in question, and the land in question shall not be defined as the first-class area of the building.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)