8. Whether the farmland falls under the category of self-farmland

Since six business districts, such as inspection team 1, etc. according to the comprehensive development plan for inspection team, do not exceed one million square meters in a separate business district, it does not constitute a large-scale development project district, so it does not fall under the category of a large-scale development project district, if transferred after three years have elapsed from the date of incorporation into a residential area,

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

[Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16953, Oct. 11, 2007]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Seoul High Court 2006Nu264 (Law No. 27, 2006)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 440,363,226 against the plaintiff on November 1, 2003.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a member states on this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters newly asserted by the Plaintiff at the trial. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. On February 25, 2002, the Plaintiff, upon receiving a report from the public official in charge of the civil service office belonging to the ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on the sale of the previous land from the Plaintiff, claimed that the transfer income tax was calculated as KRW 598,301,573 on the basis of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid it in full. However, the Defendant’s disposition of this case imposing an additional amount exceeding KRW 440,363,226, more than the calculated amount contrary to the Plaintiff’s trust in this case is contrary to the principle of the prohibition of speech.

B. On the other hand, in general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of speech and good faith to the acts of tax authorities in tax law relations, first, the tax authorities should express the public opinion that is the subject of taxpayer trust, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance, third, the taxpayer must act reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the reliance, and fourth, the tax authority's disposition contrary to the above reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9848, Apr. 2

However, the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of closed speech is applicable to a case where there are special circumstances that are deemed consistent with the justice and equity to protect taxpayer's trust even if it sacrifices the legality, and there is a key element of the legal doctrine in that it is the protection of taxpayer's trust. Therefore, in determining whether there is a public opinion statement by a tax authority, one of the above requirements, it is not necessarily a formal authority of the administrative organization, but it is necessary to make a decision by the substance in light of the person in charge's organizational position and duties, specific circumstances leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the taxpayer's trust possibility (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12159 delivered on June 16, 195).

C. We look back to the instant case, even if it was true that ○○○ Tax Office public official in charge of civil service calculated the transfer income tax to be paid by the Plaintiff on the basis of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff as KRW 598,301,573 on the basis of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the public official’s organizational status and duties, etc., it is difficult to see that the Defendant issued a public opinion to the effect that the Defendant would reduce or exempt transfer income tax from the transfer of previous land on the sole basis of such facts in light of the public official’s organizational status

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.