이 사건 토지는 농가창고의 부속토지로 보기 어려움.[국승]
The early high-2014-China-1576
It is difficult to regard the instant land as land annexed to a farm warehouse.
The area of the warehouse of this case is larger than that of the general farmer, and is excessively larger than that of the claimant, and most farmland is located at a remote distance, and its function as a workplace for the selection and packing of harvested material, rather than the function of the warehouse that keeps farming equipment or harvested material, is larger than that of the farmer. Thus, the disposition that excluded the transfer tax reduction and exemption was not erroneous on the ground that it is not a farmer.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)
The revocation of revocation of a disposition to reject capital gains tax correction by the District Court 2015Guhap7451
Park AA
○ Head of tax office
November 24, 2015
December 22, 2015
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on September 17, 2014 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Korea Land and Housing Corporation implemented a housing site development project in the OOO3 district (hereinafter referred to as the “project in this case”) within the OO-dong team in OO-dong, and the 900 square meters of warehouse site (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff was incorporated into the project implementation district of the instant project.
B. On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on June 26, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land on August 2, 2013, by transferring 192.75 square meters and 130 square meters in Nadong (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).
C. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return and payment of capital gains tax of KRW 115,086,130 to the Defendant on the instant land.
D. On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax of KRW 115,086,130 on the ground that each of the instant buildings falls under the self-arable farmland stipulated in Article 27 of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as an agricultural warehouse. However, on January 17, 2014, the Defendant issued a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s request for correction (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to regard each of the instant real estate as a farming shed, on the ground that the instant land constitutes self-arable farmland stipulated in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
E. On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for administrative appeal on November 18, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since each of the buildings of this case is a warehouse for agricultural machinery, a harvested material, and a warehouse, and is an agricultural shed directly required for the plaintiff's farmland management, the land of this case, which is the site, shall be deemed farmland subject to
3. Related statutes;
Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.
4. Determination
According to Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the transfer of land cultivated directly by a person residing in a farmland, and Article 27 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which specifically provides for farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, includes "farmers directly required for farmland management" in the farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax. If each of the buildings of this case constitutes farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the land of this case, which is the site of each of the buildings of this case, shall be considered as farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax. However, in light of the following circumstances that can be added to the above acknowledged facts, the each of the buildings of this case cannot be deemed as "farmlands directly required for farmland management" under Article 27 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax.
① The prior meaning of farmer's farmer is "a house which is simple in dry field near dry field for convenient farming." In the administrative guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, considering the aforementioned prior meaning of farmer's farmland, it requires "a facility installed in land used for agricultural management" and "a total floor area shall not exceed 20 square meters". Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Farmland Act and Article 2 (3) 2 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25042, Dec. 30, 2013) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act require "a facility installed in land used for farming management" as a requirement for farming shed under the Farmland Act, taking into account the aforementioned prior meaning of farmer's farmland. In addition, the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act newly established by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on April 3, 2014, which is after the Plaintiff transferred the land of this case, shall be an additional total area not exceeding 20 square meters under the Farmland Act.
② Farmland cultivated by the Plaintiff at the time of transferring the instant land to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation is ○○○○-dong 295,000 square meters, ○○○-dong 295, 000 square meters, ○○-gun 465, 05 square meters, 483 square meters, 483 square meters, and 5,031 square meters in a reasonable distance from the instant land, and thus, it cannot be deemed that each of the instant buildings is “facilities installed on land used for agricultural management.”
③ The instant land is in contact with the Plaintiff’s residence, ○○○○○○○○ 216 and 256-9, which is the Plaintiff’s residence, and the plastic houses are in contact with the Plaintiff’s land and the 256-9 land. The entire registration of each of the instant buildings stated in the entire registration of each of the instant buildings that the use of each of the instant buildings was indicated as “a farmer’s warehouse,” and the Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant buildings was used as a warehouse for agricultural machinery and equipment, and it does not appear as a facility that only sees each of the instant buildings as a warehouse for the Plaintiff’s residence
④ The area of each of the instant buildings is 322.75 square meters (i.e., 192.75 square meters + 130 square meters). The area of the instant land is 900 square meters, which is not only exceeding 20 square meters as much as the maximum area stipulated in the administrative guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Enforcement Rule of the Farmland Act as the requirements for farming clubs, but also cannot be deemed as a “dy field near dry field.”
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that this case's land constitutes farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.