자경농지에 해당하지 않고, 비사업용 토지로 보아 부과한 처분은 적법함[국승]
Seoul High Court 2010Nu3096 (Law No. 24 August 2011)
early 209 middle 1580 ( October 15, 2009)
The disposition imposed on the non-business land that is not a self-owned farmland is legitimate.
The disposition on which capital gains tax has been imposed by deeming that land 2 was not used as farmland is excluded from the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland, and the whole land is regarded as land for non-business and the part corresponding to the land annexed to the land is regarded as land for non-business and the land for non-business is legitimate
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2011Du22150 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
XX Kim
the director of the tax office of Western
Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu30996 Decided August 24, 2011
January 12, 2012
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit as to the dismissed lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of the plaintiff shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The defendant makes ex officio decisions on the part of the appeal.
According to the records, on October 11, 201, which was after the filing of the appeal of this case, the defendant issued a decision of correction to revoke ex officio exceeding KRW 184,189,090 among the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 202,133,180 for the defendant against the plaintiff on February 4, 2009, pursuant to the purport of the judgment of the court below on October 11, 201, which was after the filing of the appeal of this case. Thus, the part seeking revocation of ex officio among the lawsuit of this case is related to the disposition that has become null and void, and thus becomes illegal as there is no interest in the lawsuit.
2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, namely, that the land No. 2 was not used as farmland, and that Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008) which provides for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-arable farmland should be applied. In addition, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on the ground that the housing was constructed on the above land, the entire land was deemed as land for non-business use, and that the part corresponding to the land annexed to the above land is not a land for non-business use.
Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that there was any error of law by recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by inconsistency in its reasoning. Furthermore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was any error in the procedures for imposing capital
3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed. Since this part of the judgment of the court below is deemed to be sufficient for this court to render a direct judgment, it is revoked the judgment of the court of the first instance corresponding thereto and dismissed this part of the lawsuit. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed part are assessed against the losing party according to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Act. The costs of appeal against the dismissed part