Whether any disposition imposing capital gains tax is void or not.

Since the requirements for self-sufficiency in farmland do not confirm only airline Jin and decide not only 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s labor force but also based on various evidences, the Plaintiff’s self-reliance on the said land cannot be recognized solely on the facts alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2016Gudan280 2014

00

00. Head of tax office

November 24, 2016

December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On December 1, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 49,647,153 on the Plaintiff for the year 2013 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff sold c. c. 215-2 c. b. b. b. c. c. 215-2 c. 2414 m. 215 m. 215 m. 218-1 m. 1351 m. 218-5 m. 260 m., and did not report the transfer income tax.

B. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 55,778,130 for the year 2013 by excluding the application of special deduction for long-term holding as to the said transfer to the Plaintiff, which did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption for self-owned farmland. On January 7, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition of reducing KRW 6,130,986 by applying the special deduction for long-term holding on the part verified as land for business (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The final notice tax amount of KRW 49,647,153 was imposed (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the airline margin on each of the above lands (2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013), although it is clearly recognized that the plaintiff had been engaged in a drilling farming on each of the above lands, the disposition of this case by the defendant on a different premise is null and void as serious errors are obvious.

3. Determination of legality of the instant disposition

Since the requirements for self-sufficiency in farmland do not confirm only airline Jin and decide on whether the Plaintiff mobilized 1/2 labor force and decided by various evidences, it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff’s self-reliance on the said land solely based on the facts alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized, and it cannot be deemed unlawful as serious and obvious. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)