Suwon District Court 2011Guhap4115 ( December 21, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy1864 ( December 30, 2010)

It is difficult to recognize that farmland equivalent to at least 1/2 of the previous farmland area has been cultivated among substitute farmland.

In light of the fact that the tax authority's land for a field investigation is merely a part of a trace, most of the agricultural buildings were not found to be scambling, and that there are no unavoidable circumstances that do not inevitably grow due to flooding, such as the content of flood damage is not registered in detail, etc., the tax authority's exemption from reduction is legitimate, since it is recognized to have cultivated extremely only a part of the large farmland.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Nu2674 Revocation of disposition, such as capital gains tax and additional dues

XX

The director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap4115 Decided December 21, 2011

May 16, 2012

June 27, 2012

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 defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on March 2, 2010 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 19, 199, the Plaintiff acquired on March 8, 2007 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as 'the first substitute land') from among the 873 square meters in the XX-Eup XX-si (hereinafter referred to as 'the name of Eup/Myeon') and April 16, 2007 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as 'the first substitute land') from among the 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as 'the second substitute land'; hereinafter referred to as 'the second substitute land'); and hereinafter referred to as 'the second substitute land') from among the 000-Mari-ri 000-ri 16, 2007 and the 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as 'the second substitute land'; hereinafter referred to as 'the substitute land') from among the 1st unit land.

B. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) on the ground that he/she acquired the instant substitute land by filing a report on capital gains tax on the previous land.

C. On November 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant substitute land as a result of the on-site investigation, and on March 2, 2010, exempted the Plaintiff from applying Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, thereby imposing KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on December 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 13, 15, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the land of this case, the Plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than three years as it occupied the entire size of the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share, 683 square meters, and part of part of 396 square meters and 20 square meters prior to 000-200, which is the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share, as separate ownership. The Plaintiff was unlawful in the disposition of this case by considering that the Plaintiff did not own the farmland of this case even though the time when the Defendant confirmed the farmland of this case for November, 200, because the Plaintiff did not own the farmland of this case for not less than three years. The part of the entrance, site, access road, and waste materials left alone as claimed by the Defendant was the largestCC owned by other co-owners, and was damaged by inundation due to the concentration of July and September, 209, and around that time, the Plaintiff could not have caused the farmland of this case due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not own the farmland of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) In the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, the Plaintiff stated that: (a) from May 2, 2007 to May 22, 2007; and (b) from March 18, 2010 to March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, the primary land of which was KRW 000,000, to KRW 436.50,000; (c) and (d) from KRW 683,00,000 to KRW 683,00,000; and (d) the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, state that KimA leased KRW 3,319,000,000 to KRW 3

2) At the time the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant land around October 2007, the Plaintiff cultivated cries necessary for the restaurant from the instant substitute land.

3) The Plaintiff resided adjacent to the instant substitute land in XX 000-2, and operated a restaurant with the trade name of XX 000 to x movables, but discontinued on March 13, 2009, and the lessee is running a real estate rental business by leasing the land of XX 000 to lease it.

4) Around July 23, 2009, the Plaintiff joined as a member of the XX Agricultural Cooperative. From April 2009 to October 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff purchased agricultural materials equivalent to KRW 000 from January 201 to December 12 of the same year, such as Altai, fertilizer, agrochemical, and agricultural chemicals. However, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN purchased agricultural materials during the above period.

5) The Plaintiff has a brush, a frush, and a frush with a frush with agricultural instruments.

6) The KimA, on July 12, 2009, was registered with the competent administrative agency on the grounds that the surrounding large-scale farmland, including GATT 000,000 and 3,319 square meters, has been flooded, thereby causing damage to flooding. However, with respect to the second-class land, it is limited to damage caused by flooding, but detailed contents are not registered.

7) Around September 1, 2009, part of the 2nd land was flooded due to an intensive rain around September 2009, and according to the images at that time, it was found that some of the 2nd land was planted, but the remaining parts were only flick, but the crops were not planted (No. 34-1, 2).

8) On November 2009, Defendant employees conducted a field investigation on the instant substitute land. Around November 2009, only some area of the instant substitute land was planted, and most of the land was fluored, and building waste materials were stored in a part, and the secondary substitute land was installed with a vinyl facility and a plastic house for the storage of materials in a site.

9) On February 4, 2010, 2010, the village resident LB opened a written confirmation to the Defendant’s employee that “the strings and shoulders were involved in the part adjacent to the 2nd unit land adjacent to the 2nd unit land, and the rest was being used as a string site and a road, and around June 2009, 50 male were viewed to cultivate the strings in the above land, and the 2nd unit land was added to a string of the same month, and on July 2009, the 2nd unit land was not stored in the water.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5, 6-1, Gap evidence 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 34-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 5-2, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, the fact-finding results with respect to the Administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration, and the whole purport of the pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) provide that where a person who resides in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or a person who resides in a neighboring Si/Gun/Gu directly cultivates for three years or longer, transfers an existing land subject to taxation of agricultural income tax, and the area of farmland newly acquired is half or more of the area of farmland to be transferred as a result of the necessity for cultivation, or one third or more of the value of farmland to be newly acquired and cultivated for three years or more, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the existing land shall be reduced or exempted. Accordingly, in order to reduce or exempt capital gains tax on the ground of a substitute land, a person shall cultivate farmland equivalent to at least half of the area of the existing land among the substitute land newly acquired for

2) We examine whether, after acquiring the instant substitute land, the Plaintiff cultivated farmland equivalent to at least 1/2 of the previous land area for at least three years among the farmland in the instant case.

The following circumstances revealed through the above recognition: ① although the Plaintiff cultivated the substitute land of this case around 2007, it is stated that the second substitute land under the farmland ledger was self-fluence from March 18, 2010; ② the Plaintiff’s KimA cultivated the land of XX 00; the Plaintiff’s purchased farming materials did not appear to have been used by KimA; ③ the farming organizations owned by the Plaintiff appears to have used the farming facilities of this case; ③ the residents of village 2009 did not have flood damage to the second substitute land of this case; ④ the residents of village 2009 were not aware of the fact that the second substitute land of this case was located in the second substitute land of this case; ⑤ The residents of the second substitute land of this case were not aware of the fact that the second substitute land of this case was located in the second substitute land of this case for 2009, and it was difficult to find that the Plaintiff did not know the second substitute land of this case for 200 years or more.

3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax by substitute land, the instant disposition is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case filed by the Plaintiff is groundless and thus rejected. The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The appeal filed by the Plaintiff is not accepted.