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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 34,653,185 against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014 is revoked.

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the instant land to 00,000 Do 000,000 Do 739-3 Do 376 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”; and (b) filed a report on capital gains tax reduction or exemption with the Defendant by asserting that the instant land is self-employed farmland eligible for capital gains tax reduction or exemption under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. The Defendant: (a) conducted a field investigation on the Plaintiff from April 14, 2014 to May 3, 2014; and (b) (c) on October 10, 201, the Plaintiff acquired a river site of 786-11 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “exchange land”), which is State property, pursuant to an exchange contract on October 10, 201; and (b) on October 31, 201, combined the exchange land of this case into the land of this case into the land of this case and confirmed that the land of this case constituted a part of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) and the land of this case transferred to the Plaintiff; and (d) on October 31, 2011, converted the exchange land of this case into the land of this case into the land of this case and the land of this case. < Amended by Act No. 7395, Oct. 39, 2012>

C. Accordingly, on July 9, 2014, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the transfer of the instant land does not fall under the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax prescribed in Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act because it did not meet the requirements for the self-sufficiency for eight years.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for adjudication against the Director of the Tax Tribunal, but the said request was dismissed on February 16, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, on September 11, 2015, which was after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant conducted a survey on the instant land on September 11, 201, and as a result, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition to reduce the amount of the capital gains tax imposed on the instant land to KRW 34,653,185 on the grounds that the Plaintiff constitutes part of the instant exchange land acquired on October 10, 201, but the land of this case does not constitute a self-farmland for eight years. However, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition on January 3, 1965, the land of this case can be deemed as falling under a part of the instant self-arable land that is confirmed to have continued farming, and thus, it can be deemed as satisfying the requirements for self-employed for eight years (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The land annexed to this case was combined with the land annexed to this case, and the land in this case was subdivided from the land annexed to this case, which differs from the time of acquisition by shares. Thus, the time of acquisition of the land in this case shall be determined in proportion to each area of the land annexed to this case and the land annexed to this case.

2) Meanwhile, the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant offset land (hereinafter referred to as “instant offset land”) out of the exchange land in this case shall be deemed not to have obtained the actual right to dispose of the instant offset land on October 10, 201, but not to have prepared an exchange contract with the Plaintiff on December 27, 2007, in which the Plaintiff paid the difference (the value equivalent to 47.9 square meters out of the exchange land in this case) and the Plaintiff prepared the exchange contract with the 00-Gun.

Note (1) The Plaintiff asserts that among the land exchanged in this case, a considerable amount of the above size is equivalent to that of the appraisal value of the land owned by the Plaintiff and 743-7 land owned by the Plaintiff and 00 Ri 743-8 land.

3) Therefore, among the instant land, the acquiring time of the instant land 337.28 square meters (i.e., 376 square meters in the instant land x 376 square meters in the instant land / 3746 square meters in the instant land / 4,176 square meters in the instant land) shall be deemed on January 3, 1965. ② Of the instant land, the acquisition time of the instant land 34.4 square meters in the instant land / (376 square meters in the instant land x 430 square meters in the instant exchange land / 4,176 square meters in the instant exchange land / 430 square meters in the instant exchange land / 430 square meters in the instant exchange land / 430 square meters in the instant exchange land / 476 square meters in the instant land x 4.32 square meters in the instant land / 4300 square meters in the instant land / 176 square meters in the instant land /401.71 square meters in the instant land.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, for the purpose of calculating gains on transfer of assets, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act and Article 162(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the time of acquisition and the time of transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of the assets concerned, but if the registration of ownership transfer is completed before the price is liquidated, the date of receipt of the registration shall be the date of acquisition. However, in light of each description of evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings with the head of 00 Gun on October 10, 201 when concluding an exchange contract with the Plaintiff on state property, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above land and the land acquired 743-7 and 00 743-8 7,000 , which are owned by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been paid 4,047,500 won on the same day and that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have paid part of the price of the land acquired after the exchange contract or the exchange contract cannot be deemed to have been concluded with the Plaintiff 1010.

2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserted that the time of acquisition of the instant land should be calculated in proportion to each area of the instant land exchanged and the instant self-employed land by using the established rules on re-majoring (Seoul 46014-2892, December 31, 1996), but the established rules are premised on the case where it is impossible to clarify the time of acquisition of the portion of the transferred land after acquiring one parcel of land by shares and transferring part of the land, and if it is obvious in light of the scope of transferred property and the location and area of the time of acquisition, it is deemed that the time of acquisition should be calculated in proportion solely on the ground that the land was combined and divided, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to satisfy the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation, such as intentionally combining the land to be transferred to an adjacent non-resident land, and thus, it is unreasonable to interpret that the above established rules on the Plaintiff acquired the portion of the instant land to be acquired by 160 square meters, 30 square meters or more, 6.

3. Conclusion

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

Relevant statutes

▣ 소득세법

Article 98 (Time of Transfer or Acquisition)

In calculating gains on transfer of assets, the time of acquisition and transfer shall be the date of liquidation of the price of relevant assets, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as cases where the date of liquidation is unclear. In such cases, if the transferee has agreed to pay capital gains tax and additional tax on capital gains tax on the transfer of relevant assets, the relevant capital gains tax and additional tax on capital gains tax shall be excluded from the price of assets

▣ 소득세법 시행령

Article 162 (Time of Transfer or Acquisition)

(1) "Cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where the date on which the price has been paid is unclear" in the former part of Article 98 of the Act means the following cases:

1. Where the date on which the price is settled is not certain, the date of registration, receipt of registration, or transfer date entered in the register, registry, list, etc.;

2. Date of receipt of the registration entered in the register, register, list, etc. where the transfer of ownership (including the registration and the opening of the name) has been made before the price is settled;

(5) In applying Article 98 of the Act and paragraph (1) of this Article, if the acquiring time of transferred asset is obscure, the asset first acquired shall be deemed first transferred.

▣ 조세특례제한법

Article 69 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

① 농지 소재지에 거주하는 대통령령으로 정하는 거주자가 8년 이상[대통령령으로 정하는 경영이양 직접지불보조금의 지급대상이 되는 농지를 「한국농어촌공사 및 농지관리기금법」에 따른 한국농어촌공사 또는 농업을 주업으로 하는 법인으로서 대통령령으로 정하는 법인(이하 이 조에서 농업법인 이라 한다)에 2015년 12월 31일까지 양도하는 경우에는 3년 이상] 대통령령으로 정하는 방법으로 직접 경작한 토지 중 대통령령으로 정하는 토지의 양도로 인하여 발생하는 소득에 대해서는 양도소득세의 100분의 100에 상당하는 세액을 감면한다. 다만, 해당 토지가 「국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률」에 따른 주거지역・상업지역 및 공업지역(이하 이 조에서 주거지역 등 이라 한다)에 편입되거나 「도시개발법」 또는 그 밖의 법률에 따라 환지처분(��������) 전에 농지 외의 토지로 환지예정지 지정을 받은 경우에는 주거지역등에 편입되거나, 환지예정지 지정을 받은 날까지 발생한 소득으로서 대통령령으로 정하는 소득에 대해서만 양도소득세의 100분의 100에 상당하는 세액을 감면한다.