1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on a new argument of the plaintiff at the court of first instance is added by Paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing it as it is by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Determination on new arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 168-14(3)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works pursuant to Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).

(2) On June 29, 2007, the Governor of Gangwon-do decided that the acquisition date of land purchased by consultation or expropriated pursuant to other Acts shall not be deemed land for non-business use. (2) On June 29, 2007, the Governor of Gangwon-do publicly announced the detailed statement of land, etc. in the Plaintiff G District Urban Development Zone (hereinafter “the public notice of this case”) to the F day of the original city including the forest in this case.

The instant notice constitutes “public notice of project approval” under Article 168-14(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. The Plaintiff acquired the instant forest land from June 29, 2007 to July 16, 2004, which was two years before the instant notice was issued, and transferred the instant forest land on July 14, 2014.

3) 따라서 이 사건 임야는 소득세법 시행령 제168조의14 제3항 제3호에 따라 비사업용 토지로 보아서는 안 되므로, 이 사건 임야에 대해서는 장기보유 특별공제가 적용되어야 한다. 나. 관련 규정 ▣ 구 소득세법 시행령(2015. 2. 3. 대통령령 제26067호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제168조의14(부득이한 사유가 있어 비사업용 토지로 보지 아니하는 토지의 판정기준 등) ③ 법 제104조의3제2항에 따라 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 토지는 비사업용 토지로 보지 아니한다. 3. 「공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 및 그 밖의 법률에 따라 협의매수 또는...