(1) Where a building is constructed only on the ground of part of the land in one fence, the scope of the land subject to special long-term holding deduction.

If several parcels of land are located within one fence, even if there are only some lots of land, the part which does not exceed the area under Article 46-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13194 of Dec. 31, 190) is all attached to the building regardless of the number of the lots of land, and is subject to the special long-term holding deduction regardless of the number

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. 13194 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Maritime Affairs Office

Busan High Court Decision 92Gu1087 delivered on May 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff acquired the site 9 on October 6, 1974, and transferred the site 9 to August 28, 1989. The court below held that the building site of this case cannot be deemed as a long-term possession special deduction of the building site of this case because the plaintiff and another person's building were not subject to the long-term possession special deduction of the building site of this case, and that the building of this case is not subject to the special deduction of the land of this case because the building of this case and the 410.70 square meters on the site of this case were destroyed by fire on February 7, 198, but the 1st floor still remains. In addition, the court below recognized that the land of this case was not subject to the special deduction of the land of this case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree No. 2931, Dec. 31, 1988, since there were no special deduction of the land of this case and the 4th floor area of this case, regardless of the related evidence and the provisions of the records.

In the end, all arguments are not acceptable.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)