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 reasons why this court shall be stated in this judgment are as follows. The defendant in the third 10th 12th 13th 12th 12-13th 12th 12th 12th 13th 2013 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed as "the plaintiff shall be subject to Article 143(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act with respect to the imposition of global income tax for the year 2013," and the plaintiff shall be deemed as "the plaintiff shall be subject to Article 143(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act with respect to the imposition of global income tax for the year 2013," and except for the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in the trial at the

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Whether to start and abolish the Plaintiff’s housing construction and sales business ought not to be determined by the type of “business place”, which is the location of individual real estate sold in lots, but should be determined depending on whether the Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly engaged in the relevant business for a long time.

The Plaintiff had already commenced the Housing Construction and Sales Business 30 years prior to around 20 years (at around 2011, the Plaintiff is a continuing business operator who had continuously and repeatedly built and sold housing, etc. from then to then.

Therefore, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Defendant’s starting of the business of the instant 1 house was around 2012 and around 2015, was unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Whether a business income under the Income Tax Act constitutes business income ought to be determined according to social norms, taking into account the existence of the profit-making purpose of the business, the scale and frequency of the business, and the aspects of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6559, Nov. 26, 191). In a case of a new house construction project, if a business operator had completed a sale of newly built house and discontinued its business, the business purpose is already achieved and the business is to be conducted any longer.