쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 4-1, 2, 1, 2-2, and 1, 1, 2 of the evidence No. 1, 1, and 2 of the two parties.

A. On December 16, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired and owned AAAB B, 518-5, 1,398 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and transferred it to the Gyeonggi Local Public Corporation on June 7, 2006. B. On August 24, 2006, the Plaintiff, upon filing a preliminary return on the tax base of the transfer income tax for the transfer income tax for the year 2006 following the transfer of the instant land, directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years, and applied for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008).

C. On September 12, 2008, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 103,191,410 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 following the transfer of the instant land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but on June 3, 2009, the said appeal was dismissed.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful, although ① residing near the land of this case from 1995 to 2006, and directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. ② With respect to the housing and its appurtenant land residing in the land of this case, the non-taxation provision on the transfer income tax of one household shall be applied.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts recognized

The following facts may be recognized by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each period and image of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 10 (including each number):

(1) On August 4, 1998, after the acquisition of the instant land, the Plaintiff was registered as a resident at the neighboring domicile of the instant land from August 4, 1998 to the date of the transfer of the instant land (from August 4, 1998 to May 24, 2000, the Plaintiff was registered as resident at the parcel number of the instant land from May 25, 2000 to the date of the transfer of the instant land).

(2) 원고는 1994년경부터 성남시 HH구 GG동 소재 사업장에서 XXXX라는 상호로 나전철기 제조업을 운영하고 있고, 1979년경부터 현재까지 서울 YYY구 ZZ동에 소재한 SSSSSSSS협동조합의 대표자로 재직하고 있다. 또한 원고는 2003년 경부터 RR시 PP구에서 부동산 임대업을 영위하고 있으며, 1992. 2. 28.부터 2003. 1. 30.까지 서울 DD구 EE동 1655-20(1994. 11. 2.부터 1998. 8. 3.까지, 2006. 12. 15.부터 현재까지 원고의 주민등록상 주소지이다)에서 부동산 임대업을 영위하였다.

(3) At the time of the purchase of the instant land by consultation, the Gyeonggi Local Public Corporation assessed the current status of the instant land as 330 square meters and 550 square meters of land in 518 square meters prior to the purchase of the instant land. Around August 2006, the Gyeonggi Local Public Corporation made a compensation agreement on the obstacles to the instant land, such as the list of obstacles below.

(4) According to the images revealed in the aerial photography where the instant land was taken, most of the instant land is located in the house, greenhouse, warehouse, sidewalk block, tree, turf, etc. on the instant land.

(5) From February 16, 1990 to June 30, 1995, the J engaged in the household repairs and general timbering business under the trade name of OO households with the land of this case as the location of the place of business. From March 2, 2001 to August 10, 2006, YV engaged in the business of opening LL farm under the trade name of LL farm from the land of this case, and Kim NN runs the housing repair business from December 1, 2004 to December 5, 2006 with the trade name of MM house Repair Center.

D. Determination by issue

(1) Whether the Plaintiff, for more than eight years, was directly cultivated as farmland in this case

(A) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that in order for a transferor to be subject to the reduction of or exemption from income tax on his own farmland, the transferor shall be recognized as having cultivated the farmland directly for not less than 8 years from the time when he acquired the farmland in a Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and the "direct farming" means that the transferor is engaged in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants in his own farmland or cultivating or growing them with his own labor for not less than 1/2 of the farming work. Even if the fact that the land was cultivated as farmland is recognized, it is not presumed that the owner has been replaced, but the transferor must prove such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 193Nu138, Jul. 13, 1993).

(B) The following circumstances revealed in light of the above facts. ① The instant land occupied most of the houses, plastic houses, warehouses, blocks, trees, and turfs, etc., and the instant land was used as the place of business engaged in the manufacturing of traditional houses, the household repairs, the opening of houses, and the repair of houses. It is difficult to deem that the instant land has been used as farmland for cultivating crops. ② Even if it is deemed that the instant land was used as farmland in consideration of the fact that the status of 518 square meters out of the instant land was 518 square meters as farmland at the time of purchase by consultation, and that there was an obstacle to 254 square meters as farmland, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land as farmland for 10 years prior to 10 years since it was difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had been directly engaged in the manufacturing business of 10 years prior to 20 years ago, or that there was a lack of evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff had been located in the instant land as the owner of the instant farmland for 15 years or more from 20 years ago.

(A) Under the Income Tax Act, a house shall be deemed to be a “building used for a de facto permanent residence” in consideration of the purpose of use, structure and form of a building, the relationship of use of a building, and whether it is engaged in daily life at all times, regardless of the use classification, building permission or registration in the public register, such as a building ledger, and the non-taxation provisions for capital gains tax on the land annexed to one house for one household shall apply only when

(나) 갑 제7호증, 을 제4호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 이 사건 토지에 대하여 작성된 지장물건조사서에는 원고가 '가옥1' 115.27㎡, 'V/H 내부건축물' 32.1㎡ 및 '창고1' 90㎡를 소유하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, 수원시 영통구청장이 작성한 민원회신에 의하면 원고가 이 사건 토지 위에 불법건축물 주택 66㎡에 대하여 이행강제금을 납부한 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나, 위 인정사실만으로는 이 사건 토지에 있는 건축물이 원고 소유의 주택임을 인정하기에 부족하고, 그 밖에 원고가 제출한 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제8호증의 2, 3, 갑 12호증의 각 기재와 및 제1섬 증인 유◇◇의 증언은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵거나 원고 주장사실을 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 갑 제8호증의 1, 갑 제12호증, 을 제4, 8호 증의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 유◇◇의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 위 주택은 1996년경 김□□가 거주하던 가옥이 화재로 소설되자 다시 신축한 것으로서 그 보상금도 경기지방공사로부터 김□□가 수령한 사실, 위 창고 건물들은 샌드위치판넬 벽체로 된 무허가건물로서 '창고1' 90㎡에는 박★★ 소유의 물품이 보관되어 있었던 사실, 원고(가구장인)는 MM집수리센타(김NN), 21세기종합상사와 함께 영업보상을 받았고, 원고 소유의 윷칠, 장롱(14자) 16개,장롱(12자) 7개, 장롱(11자) 4개, 문갑 54개, 탁자 54개, 화장대 54개 등 다수의 제품 및 영업설비에 대하여 지장물 보상을 받은 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 주택은 김□□의 소유이고, 위 창고 건물들은 영업을 하기 위한 창고 내지 작업장의 용도로 사용되었다(설령 원고가 영업을 위하여 기거하며 극히 일부를 주거용으로 이용하였다 하더라도, 독립적인 주거생활의 용도로 사용되는 주거용 건물에 해당하지 않는다)고 봄이 상당하다.

E. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s land directly cultivated for not less than eight years as farmland, or the building and its appurtenant land fall under one house for one household, is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

3. 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 the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.