Seoul Administrative Court 2012Gudan30410 ( October 12, 2013)

by operating a parking lot with less than 3% of the land value in comparison with the land value, and corresponding to the non-business land.

It cannot be deemed that the parking lot with less than 3% of the land value does not fall under the business of operating the parking lot, which is related to the "resident" or that it was not used for any purpose. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the land is a lot of land owned by one household that does not own a house and excluded from the land for non-business use.

Article 168-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

2013Nu23432 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

DoAA

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Gudan30410 decided July 12, 2013

December 4, 2013

January 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2012, among the imposition of the capital gains tax belonging to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2012, is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the following additions to the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular in this court, or re-convened, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff operated an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, but the annual amount of land value does not reach 3/10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the purpose of operation of the parking lot is not feasible, such as that the amount of income for one year does not reach 3/100 as provided in Article 83-4 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it should be excluded from the land for non-business use as provided in Article 168-11 (1) 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act." In full view of the evidence adopted in the first instance court judgment cited in this judgment, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff operated an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act at the time of transfer of the land in this case, and the amount of income for one year of land value does not fall short of 3/100 of the amount of income for non-business use under Article 83-4 (6) 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it does not constitute a newly-built land under Article 1618-1 of the Enforcement Decree.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.