Daejeon District Court 2010Guhap4973 ( November 16, 2011)

early 2010 to 0529 ( November 22, 2010)

It is difficult to deem that the requirements for reduction and exemption on farmland are satisfied.

In light of the fact that the former owner of substitute farmland continues to possess farmland even after the transfer of farmland and received direct payments compensating for rice income, etc., it is difficult to recognize that he/she actually resided in the location of substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of farmland and actually cultivated substitute farmland for three years or longer from the date of transfer of farmland.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Nu2321 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Nam

Decree of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Guhap4973 Decided November 16, 2011

May 24, 2012

June 21, 2012

1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of transfer income tax for the year 2005 and KRW 000 of transfer income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on August 15, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court's reasoning is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On the other hand, this Court's reasoning concerning this part is as follows: "On the other hand, the burden of proof on the above requirements is added to the plaintiff who is the person liable for duty to pay capital gains tax," and the part of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the dismissal as mentioned below (b). Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts used for repair;

3) Whether the plaintiff's second assertion satisfies the requirements of residence

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

On March 2005, the Plaintiff purchased a house located in the Y 000-4 forest and fields of Boan-si, Boan-si. Since around that time, the Plaintiff operated and managed the house located in the above Y 000 and four lots of land owned by the Plaintiff from that time, while keeping three houses and residing together with the Plaintiff’s wife, and has been residing in the above house until now.

(2) Determination

(A) According to the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s resident registration was transferred on its own on November 18, 2006 at 1 year and 7 months after the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant Y land (On the other hand, according to the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff’s wife and the head of the South South South South South South South South Korea, at the time, had the Plaintiff’s domicile in the Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y0-1, the Plaintiff’s place of business).

(B) On December 20, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case on December 20, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that he had resided in the above 00 places of residence on the resident registration basis, and submitted a written confirmation of facts (Article 17-1 through 8 of the Evidence No. 17-4) as evidence, and submitted a written confirmation of facts (Article 17-1 through 8 of the Evidence No. 17-4) as evidence. On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff changed his assertion that he resided in the above 00-4 place of residence on the housing located on the 00-4 forest as well as on the above 00-4 forest as evidence, and submitted as evidence the outside photograph (Article 11-2, 3 of the Evidence No. 13-1, 2, and 3 of the above housing, and the internal photograph (Article 17-1 through 8 of the Evidence No. 17-4) as evidence consistent with the above assertion by the Plaintiff.

(C) The confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the lawsuit may not serve as evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion because the Plaintiff resided in a place different from the place of residence alleged by the Plaintiff. In addition, each of the above pictures submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff started residing in the said house within one year after the Plaintiff purchased the land XX and resided in the said house for more than three years from that time. The testimony of the first instance trial witness of the first instance trial, which the Plaintiff resides in the said 00-4 forest and fields, is different from the confirmation document (Evidence A-1 of the fact that the Plaintiff resides in the said 704 forest and fields) and it is difficult to believe it as it is. There is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise

B) Whether the cultivation requirements are satisfied

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On the farmland ledger of the Plaintiff issued on October 5, 2009 by Boan-si, Boan-si, the head of Boan-si, the head of Boan-si owns 19 parcels of land in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, the head of Sinan-si, as well as the head of Sinan-si. On the other hand, the Plaintiff owns 19 parcels of land in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, the head of Sinan-si, the head of Sinan-si, the head of Sinan-si, the head of Gu

(B) The Plaintiff was engaged in a large-scale livestock industry that raises 10,000 Y2 from the Y200-1 located in the Y200-1 Y2. From 2005 to 2007, the Plaintiff was engaged in a large-scale livestock industry that raises 10,000 won in good money each year.

(B) From the date of selling each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff on April 19, 2005, GGG, the former owner of the land 000-2 and 000-4, the former owner of each of the instant lands, collected direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. from each of the instant lands in 2005 and 2006, and received rice income preservation subsidies for each of the instant lands in 2005 and 2006 (which were applied for farming in the pertinent year) (the direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. shall be paid in the pertinent year). The Plaintiff developed each of the instant lands as dry field after rice harvest in 2006.

(C) Around June 2009, according to the verification that the employee’s employee conducted an on-site investigation on the land XX, at the time, 00-2, and 4, the remaining land except for the means, glass and 00-8, the maintenance workers of swine feed crops. On November 2009, 2009, Boliri was cut on the remaining land except for 000-8.

[Ground of recognition] The respective descriptions of Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 10, 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that from February 2006, the Plaintiff developed 000-2 and 000-4 out of the land of this case as dry field from that time, and cultivated Boririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririth, and that the remainder of the land was self-breed by cultivating Boririri

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that it conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s testimony was contrary to the Plaintiff’s statement of 1,6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 19, 20, and 21 (including each number), the witness of the first instance trial, the former witness of the first instance trial, the GG, and HH, respectively. Of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s testimony that the former witness of the first instance trial received direct payments for preserving rice income, etc. in 2006, and that the former GG’s testimony was inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s statement of 1,6, 10, 10, 12, 14, 20, 20, 19, 21, 300, 300, 14, 300, 206, 300, 206, 40, 300, 206, 30, 30, 10

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not meet the requirement of non-taxation on transfer income tax to the effect that, within one year from the date of transfer of the instant XX land, the Plaintiff actually resided in the location of the instant XX land and cultivated the instant XX land, and that the period of residence and cultivation has passed three years. Therefore, the instant disposition made on such premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as per Disposition.