Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-83785 (Law No. 14, 2017)

Since incorporation of non-self-employed farmland into an urban development zone does not fall under cases where the use is prohibited or restricted by statutes, it still constitutes land for non-business use.

Even if farmland which had not been self-fishered was incorporated into an urban development zone, there is no restriction on the use of farmland for its original purpose, and there is no evidence to prove that there was no attempt or effort to change the form and quality of land, so it cannot be viewed as cases where use or restriction is made pursuant to the statutes, and

Article 104-3 (2) of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu65403 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

EO

AA Head of the Tax Office

November 22, 2017

December 1, 2017

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 1,061,383,370 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that "acquisition of ownership on June 9, 1978 due to sale and purchase" was added to "the next day after purchasing on June 8, 1978 and completing the registration of ownership transfer", and "the right is restricted" to "a sales contract made between the plaintiff and △△△△△△ may change the purchaser's name to a person designated by △△△△△△△△△ prior to the payment of balance upon the request and notice of △△△△△△△△ (Article 10 (1))" (Article 10 (1)). It is difficult to view that "the association of this case was prohibited from purchasing the land from the beginning to the members of the association, and it is hard to see that the plaintiff's implementation plan was implemented on the right side of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the court's decision, except for cases where "the land was purchased on June 9, 1978 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the next day."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.