Seoul Administrative Court 2013Gudan20748 (2015.06.04)

The date of transfer of land in an unused state shall be the same as the date of public notice of project approval or the date of request for purchase shall not be deemed the

It cannot be deemed that the land at issue should have been included in the new town project zone, and that the Seoul Metropolitan Government purchases the land at issue as a result of the dispute issuance in the course of construction by the project implementer, etc.

Scope of land for non-business use under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

Disposition Rejecting Transfer Income Tax Correction

○ ○

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

June 4, 2015

March 17, 2016

April 7, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on June 19, 2011 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is as follows. This court's reasoning is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion is added in the following 2.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff initially should have been included in the urban development project zone of ○○ New Town. However, SH Corporation, the project implementer, should not include the instant land in the project zone, faced with the boundary of the project zone and the land. SH Corporation, etc., upon recognizing that the instant land was included in the project zone of ○○ New Town, used the instant land as the land in the project zone of ○○○ New Town by erosioning the instant land, maintaining the legal surface and conducting landscaping.

As such, it is difficult to restore the land to its original state due to a consultation with Seoul Special Metropolitan City, SH Corporation, etc., a request for purchase is made pursuant to Article 47 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act. Therefore, there is no reason to regard the land of this case differently from other land included in the ○○ New Town project area. Therefore, the date of such request for purchase should be deemed as the date of the public announcement of the project approval for the transfer of

According to Article 104-3(1)4(a) of the former Income Tax Act, the land, the category of which is a site, is exempt from the non-business land under the Local Tax Act or the relevant laws, and the head of ○○○○○ is confirmed to have disposed of non-taxation of 1/2 of the land in this case, 1,104.30 square meters. Thus, the land in this case is excluded from the non-business land and should be subject to the special long-term holding deduction for capital gains.

B. Determination

(1) As to the first argument of the Plaintiff

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Gap evidence Nos. 17 (including each number) and the whole purport of the pleadings, as alleged by the plaintiff, SH Corporation, etc., maintained the legal surface of the land of this case that was not included in the project area while implementing the "○○ New Town project", and used the land of this case as land within the "○○○ New Town" project area, such as planting trees landscape, etc., and the plaintiff requests restoration and opening of access roads to illegally occupied land over several times, and eventually filed a complaint with the head of ○○○ and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City over several times, the plaintiff requested purchase of the land of this case to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 47 of the former National Land Planning Act, and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City can recognize the fact that the land of this case was transferred to Seoul Special Metropolitan City by making a purchase decision.

Meanwhile, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, Gap evidence Nos. 17, and Nos. 24-1 through 3, the remaining end of the project area of "○○ New Town" is adjacent to the ○○○ Neighborhood Park. The land in this case is located at the north part of the ○○ Neighborhood Park and is located across the boundary of "○○ New Town". The land in this case is connected to the land in this case and is located within the ○○ Neighborhood Park, and the land in this case is located within the east of the ○○ Neighborhood Park, and the land in this case is located within the east of the ○○ Neighborhood. According to each of the above facts, according to the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the land in this case should be included within the ○○ New Town project area as a matter of course of construction and dispute between the plaintiff and the implementer, etc., the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case should not be seen as the "the land in this case, which is the site of the National Land Planning Act".

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 19, the head of ○○○○○ is aware that when imposing the property tax on the land of this case in 201 on the land of this case in 201, the land of this case was exempted from taxation on 1/2 of 1,104.30 square meters among them. However, as seen earlier, this is because the land of this case is included as a site according to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor’s decision on urban planning facilities (park) around July 14, 197 as seen earlier, and it is only "reduction of 50/10 of the property tax on the land which has not been executed for a long period of not less than 10 years after the public notice of the topographical map was made pursuant to Article 84(1) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act." Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion on this point is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.