양도토지를 8년 이상 자경한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Suwon District Court 2012Guhap4969 ( December 26, 2012)
It is difficult to recognize the transferred land as being a minor one for not less than eight years.
In light of the fact that a variety of enterprises have been operated during the period of farmland possession, and the customer, compared to the area of farmland claimed to have been cultivated, the details and the number of times of purchase of agricultural materials are less than that of farmland, and answers to the purport that neighboring residents were a farmer at the time of on-site verification by the tax authorities, it is difficult to recognize as being self-sufficient for not less
2013Nu4189 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Park AA
The director of the tax office
Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap4969 Decided December 26, 2012
September 4, 2013
October 2, 2013
1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be lodged.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of the capital gains tax for the plaintiff on March 1, 201 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;
This court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following contents to Chapter 4 of the first instance court's decision, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance court's decision.
(3) According to the statement No. 2-1 of the Evidence No. 2-1 as to whether the Defendant applied a heavy tax rate of 60% with respect to the transfer of each farmland of this case as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant applied a transfer income tax rate of 35% with respect to the transfer of each farmland of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
On the other hand, since the tax authority has the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the tax authority has the burden of proving the requirements of land for non-business subject to capital gains tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). Thus, even if the Defendant rendered the instant disposition by deeming the transfer of each of the instant farmland as the transfer of non-business land as alleged by the Plaintiff, considering the various circumstances indicated in the first instance court ruling cited by this court as the ground for the judgment, the Plaintiff can be recognized as a legitimate transfer of each of the instant farmland for a period prescribed in Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is ordinarily engaged in cultivating or growing crops or perennial plants, or has not cultivated or cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work with his own labor, and since the testimony by the witness of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court at each of Gap evidence No. 27-4, it is insufficient to recognize the transfer of each of the instant farmland.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.