Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

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

Each imposition of capital gains tax reverted to 122,496,250 won and special rural development tax of 20,665,270 won (income tax of 122,496,256 won and special rural development tax of 20,65,274 won and special rural development tax of 20,65,274 won appears to be erroneous) shall be revoked.

A. Before 1964, the Plaintiff was a non-corporate group that was established in the name of "Seong-gun, Dongdong-gun, A1 Ri repair fraternity" for the purpose of efficiently maintaining and managing farmland repair facilities in the area of the repair fraternity to contribute to the increase of the agricultural productivity of the members of the fraternity. The GG area was determined as the land entered in the land register of the repair fraternity located in the AA1 Ri in the area of the repair fraternity located in the area of the Y-si, Sung-si, Sung-si, the name was changed to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2001.

B. On the other hand, on October 6, 1964, the Plaintiff acquired a total of 18 lots of land owned by the Plaintiff, including AAA 00-0 m2,002 m2, and 00-0 m2,484 m2,484 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant maintenance”, and on November 29, 1984, the Plaintiff owned a total of 18 lots of land owned by the Plaintiff including the instant maintenance and answer (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) on September 24, 2009, on the ground of an agreement on land acquisition for public use.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a return on capital gains tax (transfer value 2,122,100,630 won, acquisition value 401,862,855 won) with the Defendant, and paid KRW 193,109,212 to the Defendant for the instant real estate for public interest purposes under Article 77(1)1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”); and KRW 193,109,212 to the instant real estate for at least eight years under Article 69(1).

D. However, on November 1, 2010, the Defendant applied the provision on reduction and exemption of land for public works, and applied the provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax to KRW 82,913,156, but rejected an application for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax according to self-sufficiency requirements for at least eight years on the ground that the instant real estate does not fall under farmland at the time of transfer. The Defendant issued a decision to revise the capital gains tax of KRW 315,605,468 (including additional tax; hereinafter referred to as “the instant capital gains tax”) and the special rural area tax of KRW 20,665,270 (including additional tax; hereinafter referred to as “the special rural development tax of this case”) to the Plaintiff (Provided, That the capital gains tax paid and notified KRW 122,496,250 after deducting the already paid tax amount; hereinafter referred to as “disposition disposition” with the first Chairperson Park F filed a transfer income tax return under the Defendant’s name, but the Plaintiff’s land owner confirmed as a result of tax investigation.

E. The Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 25, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence I and 3 evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Gap evidence No. 2-1 to 4.

"A evidence 4 and 10 evidence 1.2, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2. Whether the disposition is legitimate

A. Determination on the imposition of capital gains tax of this case

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the acquisition of the instant real estate for 45 years, the Plaintiff used the instant maintenance of the land for agricultural purposes of the AA1-ri farmland in the GG-si, Seosung-si, GG area, through a waterway connected through the underground of the GG-do Highway and directly cultivated the instant land for 8 years or longer. Therefore, the instant real estate constitutes a self-farmland for 8 years or longer under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the transfer income tax on such real estate should be reduced or exempted, notwithstanding the fact that the instant real estate constitutes a self-farmland for 8 years or longer under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the instant disposition that imposed

(2) Relevant statutes

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

(3) Determination

(A) The land subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1), (4), and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) shall be the land directly cultivated by the resident who resides in the seat of the farmland for not less than eight years and is subject to taxation of agricultural income tax as of the date of transfer. Meanwhile, according to Article 66(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 162(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”), regardless of its land category, registry, or branch office’s title, where it is unclear that the farmland will be liquidated or its price is transferred.

(B) As seen earlier, whether the instant farmland was farmland until September 24, 2009, when the transfer took place, is included in the scope of farmland under the Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland.

However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff had been directly using the instant 2G 2 for the purpose of maintaining and using the instant 2G 0. From 0 to 0, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had been using the instant 2G 2 for the purpose of maintaining and using the instant 7G 2. The Plaintiff had no effect on the instant 6G 2 by using the instant 6G 2 for the purpose of maintaining and using the said 7G 2. The Plaintiff still did not appear to have been using the instant 7 G 2G 2 for the purpose of maintaining and using the instant 5G 2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant 2G 6G 2 had no effect on the instant 7G 6G 3, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant 5G 2G 2 had no effect on the instant 7G 3G 3, the instant 5G 2G 2, which had no effect on the instant 6G 8G 3G 3.

(C) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the answer in this case was actually cultivated at the time of the transfer of this case as to whether the answer in this case was farmland at the time of September 24, 2009, the transfer date, and rather, considering the overall purport of the pleading in the statement No. 2, the actual status of the answer in this case since that time can only be recognized as the fact that it was a road which is not farmland.

(D) Therefore, the instant real estate does not constitute farmland at the time of its transfer, and on the same premise, the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax by the Defendant, which excluded the application of the provisions on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-farmland for at least eight years under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation

B. Determination on imposition of special rural development tax of this case

(1) Relevant statutes

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

(2) Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of this case is unlawful. However, the Plaintiff’s imposition of capital gains tax of 82,913,156 won (calculated tax amount of 414,565,791 KRW 120%) is recognized as above. Thus, the Plaintiff becomes a taxpayer of special rural development tax under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Agricultural and Fishing Villages Special Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9909, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same). Thus, the Plaintiff is legitimate to impose capital gains tax of 82,913,156 won under Article 5 of the former Special Rural Development Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9909, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same) by adding 20/100 tax rate of 16,582,631 won (additional tax of 82,913,156 KRW 106x20), 2636,4665,268646.2.2

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.