1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

On February 10, 1989, the Plaintiff, B, and C acquired 1/3 shares in each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) due to inheritance on February 10, 1989, but transferred the said land to E on December 24, 2015, and subsequently excluded the special long-term holding deduction, and reported and paid KRW 50,412,656 to the Defendant on February 29, 2016, by excluding the special long-term holding deduction.

On October 31, 2008, the instant land was designated as an urban development zone (FF zone) under the Urban Development Act. From October 31, 2008, the date of designation of an urban development zone, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of KRW 16,317,890 with the Defendant on April 21, 2016, by asserting that the instant land falls under the land prohibited or restricted from use pursuant to the Act and subordinate statutes and does not fall under the land for non-business use.

On June 23, 2016, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction on the ground that “the change of form and quality, etc. is restricted even if the land category is designated as an urban development zone, and the actual cultivation does not fall under cases where the use is prohibited or restricted pursuant to statutes,” and thus, the Defendant rejected

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 2016, but was dismissed on November 9, 2016.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire pleading and the disposition of this case as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate has been restricted since the land of this case was designated as an urban development zone on October 31, 2008.

Therefore, the instant land constitutes “a land, the use of which is prohibited or restricted” under Article 104-3(2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13426, Jul. 24, 2015; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”) and Article 168-14(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Therefore, this is therefore.