A. Whether the period of holding assets or the period of determining sites under Article 23(2)2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 46-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) should be deemed as the date of the balance settlement (affirmative)

B. Reasons for excluding land (B) without any building from the special long-term holding deduction, and whether there must be a building owned by oneself on the ground to be subject to the special long-term holding deduction (negative)

A. In calculating gains on the transfer of assets under Article 27 (1) of the Income Tax Act, the above provision is not applicable only to the transfer or acquisition time of assets, but it is reasonable to view that the above provision is applied as it is as it is the base time in determining whether the requirements for taxation and the clarity of tax exemption requirements are satisfied. Thus, since Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 46-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 198) are amended as of December 31, 198, and the transfer time as the standard period for determining land B that is a land without the holding period or building of the assets under Article 46-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be the balance settlement date under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

B. In the case of land (B) without a building, the reason why it is excluded from the special long-term holding deduction is that the special long-term holding deduction is intended to induce the long-term holding of real estate, but it would impede the efficient utilization of the land, so in such a case, the special long-term holding deduction is not permitted. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that it does not necessarily mean that there is a building owned by another person on the ground, even if it is a building owned by another person, even if it is a building without a building, it does not fall under the site.

A. (B) Article 23 (2) 2 of the Income Tax Act, Article 46-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989). Article 27 (1) of the Income Tax Act, Article 53 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988) is amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1989.

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu182 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985,174) 84Nu144 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987,734) 90Nu1854 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191,1801)

Plaintiff

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu22983 delivered on February 20, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found on June 3, 198 that the plaintiff purchased or acquired the land of this case and its ground houses, and sold them to the non-party 1 on July 198, 198, and agreed to be paid after the above non-party 1 removed the building on the above land and newly constructed the new building and sold it to other persons. The above non-party 1 did not require the special deduction of long-term possession of the land of this case, but did not require the special deduction of long-term possession of the land of this case. The court below held that the transfer date of the land of this case was about May 3, 1989, the remaining liquidation date of the transfer date of the land of this case to the non-party 2.

Although Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019, Dec. 26, 198) provides for the transfer or acquisition of assets in calculating gains from the transfer of assets, it is reasonable to view that the above provision does not apply only when calculating gains from the transfer of assets, but also applies to the mental taxation requirements and tax exemption requirements of the no taxation without the law requiring clarity of taxation requirements and tax exemption requirements as if they were the base time (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1854, May 28, 1991). Thus, even if buildings owned by others are not subject to the special deduction of the acquisition of land, it is reasonable to view that the above provision does not necessarily apply to the long-term possession of land or buildings without any special deduction of the acquisition of land under Article 46-3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564, Dec. 31, 198; Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989).

In this regard, the fact-finding and decision of the court below that held that the plaintiff should make a special long-term holding deduction because it is clear that he had a building on the ground until May 3, 1989, when the land in this case was transferred, until May 3, 1989, and therefore, it is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of the legal principles.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)