Suwon District Court 201Gudan2413, 2012.06

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0075 (Law No. 18, 2011)

Farmland substitute land reduction or exemption shall be at least three years in all of the previous farmland ownership and cultivation period.

Since the definition of direct cultivation is provided on the premise of farmland owned, it should be interpreted that the ownership period and cultivation period of the previous farmland should not be less than three years in order to be subject to reduction of capital gains tax due to substitute farmland.

2012Nu2632 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

CivilAA

Head of the Office of Government

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Gudan2413 Decided August 6, 2012

December 21, 2012

February 8, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 and special rural development tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following to the last 13 parts of the judgment of the first instance.

[Plaintiffs, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Restriction of Special Cases on Farmland and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate that one of the requirements to be subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land for at least three years is one of the requirements to be subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and that the previous farmland is not required to be cultivated for at least three years, and that the previous farmland should be owned for at least three years, and that the previous farmland should not be required to be owned for at least three years. However, if Article 67(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act defines "direct farming" as the premise of "owned farmland," and if the provisions related to the remaining requirements related to the remaining requirements, the ownership (holding) period and cultivation period of the previous farmland should be more than three years, so the above argument by the Plaintiff cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion

If so, the claim of this case in the original sheet must be dismissed due to its reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason.