early 201 Gwangju 1485 (23 August 2012),

Land for non-business use can be seen as land for non-business use only if it falls under land for non-business use by designation of district unit planning zone.

As long as the use of the land of this case is specially restricted due to the public notice of designation of a district unit planning zone, it shall not be deemed as land for non-business use as prescribed by the Income Tax Act and subordinate statutes.

Article 95 of the Income Tax Act

Scope of land for non-business use under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act

2018Guhap10675 Revocation of Disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

AA and 4

SCC 21,647,00 won as non-business land, deeming the land No. 2 of this case as non-business land.

reported and paid.

3) On March 6, 2001, Plaintiff 00 Dong-dong 00 Dong-2, 2020.36 m2,020 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2

The Plaintiff 1,405,000,000 on May 18, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “three-party land”) acquired and owned the instant land, and transferred the instant land to the Plaintiff 1,405,000. The Plaintiff F considered the instant three land as the non-business land.

484,00,000 won was reported and paid.

4) On May 15, 2000, Plaintiff Park Dong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “instant case”)

On April 22, 2015, it was transferred to KRW 744,800,000.

ParkD shall report the land No. 4 of this case as land for non-business use, and transfer income tax of 155,355,680 won

reported and paid.

5) On August 24, 2006, Plaintiff Kim H-H is the case where 00 Dong-dong, Gwangju Mine-gu, 675 m2, 616.5 m2 (hereinafter “the case”).

No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as "land") was acquired and owned, and transferred to 430,000,000 on November 3, 2015.

Kim H shall regard the land No. 5 of this case as the land for non-business use, and KRW 69,000,000.

reported and paid.

(b) Designation of district unit planning by the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor;

On March 7, 2006, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor may cancel the collective creation of a development restriction zone;

Determination of designation of a district unit planning zone, designation of natural and collective settlement district, etc. to formulate district unit planning; and

The third land of this case under the Public Notice of Topographical Map (Seoul Metropolitan City Notice No. 2006-39) is a district unit planning zone.

The calendar was designated on May 15, 2009, and on May 15, 2009, the Gwangju Metropolitan Area Management Plan (the alteration of specific use area and the Class I District Unit System)

The first, second, fourth, and fifth land in this case was designated as a district unit planning zone under the Act on Public Notice of Determination (Change) and Topographical Map (Public Notice of Gwangju Metropolitan City No. 2009-112).

As each land of this case was designated as a district unit planning zone, some land is designated as a specific use area.

Although this change has been made, there is no particular restriction on the use and development of each land of this case in the contents of the above district unit plan.

C. Plaintiffs’ request for correction and the Defendants’ rejection disposition

1) The Plaintiffs are designated as land for non-business use as a district unit planning zone.

Since it is land not deemed to be subject to special deduction for long-term possession, the Defendants

Defendant BBB Director of the Tax Office filed a claim for rectification of the transfer income tax already paid to him.

In this case, the part on the part of 240 square meters out of the land No. 4 (648 square meters) of this case of the Plaintiff ParkD is accepted.

The defendants are not subject to special deduction for long-term holding, except for refunding KRW 19,522,840.

For the reason that part of the plaintiffs' request for correction is rejected (hereinafter referred to as "each disposition of this case").

C) was made.

2) The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for a trial (examination) as follows, but all were dismissed.

(S) each determination of the official flag of the Gu office of Japan (S)

AA on October 24, 2017

Tax Tribunal

December 20, 2017

AnaCC on October 24, 2017 December 20, 2017

FapF on October 25, 2017

Commissioner of the National Tax Service

December 21, 2017

ParkD on October 25, 2017, December 21, 2017

Kim H Kim H on October 23, 2017, December 21, 2017

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number), purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each of the instant lands is designated as district unit planning zones, and under the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act.

83-5 (1) 12 of the Act shall apply to the alteration, etc. of urban planning after acquiring the relevant land.

Land which is not used for business due to the reason that is not land for non-business

It is subject to special long-term holding deduction.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Relevant legal principles

1) Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13558, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “Income Tax Act”)

Article 95(2) provides that special deduction for long-term possession shall be granted for the transfer of land for non-business use.

Article 104-3(2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 83-5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act delegated by Article 14 (1) 4 shall apply to each subparagraph.

In determining whether the land constitutes a non-business land over which the transfer income tax is excessive, the non-business land concerned

As to the period of time not considered as a business, "in the case of the land which is not used for the business due to the justifiable reasons such as the alteration of urban planning after the acquisition of the land concerned, the period during which the cause occurred."

2) In light of the language and purport of these provisions, Article 83 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act

5. Use for business due to justifiable reasons, such as modification of urban planning under paragraph (1) 12.

The term "land" means the ordinary restrictions according to the use of land due to changes, etc. in urban planning.

land, the use of which is specifically restricted beyond its scope, is the original nature of the land

Article 83-5(1)12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act shall be based on the principle of limitation on the use of land for the purpose of use, the actual use of land, and the possibility of changing the original purpose of use, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du21557, Mar. 13, 2014). Furthermore, in determining whether a “justifiable cause” exists under Article 83-5(1)12 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, it shall be determined on an individual basis depending on a specific case, in consideration of statutes that cannot be used for business, de facto disability and degree of disability, and whether a taxpayer has made a serious effort to use real estate for business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du11479, Feb. 13, 2004). The burden of proof on the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074).

1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the National Land Planning and Utilization Act relating to the aforementioned evidence

§ 54. Construction, alteration of use, or installation of a structure in a district unit planning zone

the district unit plan shall be in accordance with the district unit plan, and each notice of this case shall be made by each notice of this case.

The contents of the district unit plan do not seem to have any limitation on the use and development of each land of this case.

2) Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are district unit planning zones where each land of the instant case is located pursuant to their respective notifications.

only asserts that they were designated as such, and further, the title that the initial plaintiffs acquired each of the lands of this case

of this case, the actual utilization status of each land of this case and the discussion for business during the period before or after the public notice of this case

In consideration of the possibility of change to land, land for non-business use originally due to each notice of this case.

Each of the instant lands, which did not fall under the category of the section, became non-business land, or the instant case

A specific assertion, proof, etc. that the use of each land has been specifically restricted;

It is not possible to do so.

3) Ultimately, each of the instant lands is not deemed land for non-business use as prescribed by the Income Tax Act.

Since the instant disposition does not fall under cases, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

section 3.

○ Head of tax office

BB Director of the Tax Office’s rejection on May 8, 2017 of the transfer income tax correction disposition against the Plaintiff Ansan.

Sector: (a) a refusal to revise capital gains tax made against the Plaintiff AnaCC on April 28, 2017; (b) a refusal to revise capital gains tax made against Plaintiff AnaCC on June 26, 2017; or (c) a refusal to revise capital gains tax made against Plaintiff AnaF on May 4, 2017; or (d) a refusal to revise capital gains tax made against Plaintiff EED on April 25, 2017 is revoked.

October 4, 2018

November 8, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs. The office shall hold the lawsuit

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Payment of capital gains tax by the plaintiffs

1) On July 1, 1980, the Plaintiff Ansan acquired and owned 00 m2,00 m2, 353 m2, 456 m2, Gwangju-gu, 000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) and transferred the instant land to KRW 304,280,000 on April 22, 2015. The Plaintiff Ansan deemed the instant land as the non-business land, and reported and paid KRW 69,534,000 capital gains tax. 2) On September 11, 1972, the Plaintiff Ansan acquired and owned the instant land for KRW 00,348-3 m2,689 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) and transferred it to KRW 984,30,000,000 on January 9, 2015.