1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of evidence No. 7 and evidence No. 11 through No. 23 (including each number) cited in the “No. 2-C.” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[▣ 피고는 당심에 이르러 다음과 같은 취지의 주장을 하고 있다. 『소득세법 시행규칙 제83조 제1항 제5호{지상에 건축물이 정착되어 있지 아니한 토지를 취득하여 사업용으로 사용하기 위하여 건설에 착공(착공일이 불분명한 경우에는 착공신고서 제출일을 기준으로 한다

) The meaning of “for business purposes” should be interpreted as “for business purposes,” not “for business purposes,” as alleged by the Plaintiff, but “for business purposes, for land (for business purposes) not within the scope of non-business land stipulated in Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act.”

In this case, the key land (total five parcels) corresponds to the "land other than farmland, forest land, and stock farm land" as provided by Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act, and thus, the "use of the key land for land within the scope of non-business land" is ultimately the key land (five parcels) under Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act.

Items (c) through (c);

(c) means that each land listed in the item (c) is used as one of the lands listed in Article 168-11 (1) 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

However, the key land (total five parcels) is Article 104-3 (1) 4 of the Income Tax Act.

Items (c) through (c);

Since each land listed in item (C) does not fall under any of the lands listed in item (Article 168-11 (1) 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act in the case of item (c), the land at issue is ultimately the five lots.