Whether it falls under real estate trading business

In full view of the number of transfers, such as the acquisition of real estate by the same method and the transfer of real estate within the short term, and the retention period of the real estate in this case, the Plaintiff’s act of the real estate in this case has continuity and repetition enough to regard

Article 19 of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The imposition of the global income tax of KRW 118,098,120 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on August 10, 2004 shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s implementation of this case is as follows, in addition to revising and adding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Revision. Additional Part】

(a) To revise the 3rd and the 16th and 18th and the 18th, “one’s ○○” respectively;

(b)in addition to the last part of paragraph 2-c (1) (third e.g., 12) the following:

In addition, Article 1 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act can be seen as real estate sales business.

Inasmuch as the real estate transaction was conducted as a whole with continuity and repetition under the business purpose, even if the transaction was conducted under the above provision, the feasibility of the transaction during the pertinent taxable period is not denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu10969, Feb. 23, 1996; 95Nu92, Nov. 7, 1995).

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