The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1.(a)

Articles 104(1)2-7 and 104-3(1)4 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 168-6 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) upon delegation from the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009) provide that where the ownership period of land is five years or more, the period exceeding two years immediately before the transfer date exceeds five years, and the period exceeding one year immediately before the transfer date exceeds one year and the period exceeding 20/100 of the ownership period of land shall, in principle, be deemed as non-business land and the transfer income tax rate of 60% shall be imposed on the land, and the use of land shall not be limited by the former Enforcement Decree.

In light of the language and purport of these provisions, “land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted pursuant to the relevant statutes,” as stated in Article 104-3(2) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-14(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act refers to land, the use of which is restricted beyond the ordinary scope according to the use

Here, whether “the use of land is specially restricted beyond the ordinary scope of restrictions depending on the use of land” is based on the principle of limitation on the original use of land, but the purpose of acquisition of land, the actual use of land, and its original purpose.