Whether capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for self-employed farmland for eight years;

It is consistent with the factual basis that the plaintiff also 8 years old if the fact that only the nominal corporation's representative director was entered and there was a real manager, and that there was a separate manager is a reduction or exemption for the joint owner of farmland for 8 years.

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 58,083,490 on May 2, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On December 24, 1996, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Dong-dong type purchased the same ○○○○-1, 423 square meters prior to ○○○-2, Dong-dong, Incheon, and the same ○○○-2, prior to 92 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership by 1/2 shares.

B. On August 11, 2003, when the development project of the Incheon Metropolitan City ○○ Leisure Complex was implemented, including the instant land, the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land was registered with the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation implementing the said development project on April 5, 2006 on the ground of an agreement on the acquisition of public land.

C. On June 30, 2006, the Plaintiff reported the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax to the Defendant on the ground that the instant land constitutes farmland with a self-fluence for at least eight years.

D. On May 2, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 58,083,490 for capital gains tax belonging to the year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 18, 2007, but was dismissed on December 14, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 12 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years and transferred it to the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation. The disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff, from November 14, 2002 to January 1, 2007, was appointed as the representative director of the ○○○-6 corporation located in Dong-dong, Incheon, ○○○○-6, and operated a business, etc. The plaintiff did not have any own awareness of the land of this case. In addition, since the land of this case was used as the site of ○○○ Coordination Development, which was operated by Yuchip from May 3, 2004 to December 31, 2005, the period of self-determination is not less than eight years, and thus the disposition of this case is legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The instant land is farmland located outside the agriculture promotion area as a natural green area among the urban management planning zones designated as a free economic zone. The Plaintiff and U2S type, after acquiring the instant land on December 24, 1996, are incorporated into the ○○ Leisure Complex Development Project on August 11, 2003 and transferred the instant land in April 5, 2006 to the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation with the Plaintiff’s shares in KRW 505,016,320, and the shares in U20, respectively.

(2) In the examination of the compensation details of the Urban Development Corporation of Incheon Metropolitan City (Evidence No. 6), the instant land is indicated as being planted with 200 Mad 200 Mad 10, 300 Mad 300, red 500 Mad 700, red lele 700. The Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation has compensated for losses of 37,000,000 Mad Mad 10,592,40, and paid 3,258,410 won to the Plaintiff with the agricultural compensation amount.

(3) On October 11, 1997, the Plaintiff as the cultivator, and the farmland ledger has been established as to the instant land.

(4) On May 3, 2004, the name of the instant land was the location of the location, and the ○○ Development was established to engage in the ornamental and lost wholesale business on December 31, 2005, but it was closed on December 31, 2005, but it was made as a means of receiving business compensation from the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation. Since then, it was found that the Defendant’s actual inspection conducted on the application for reduction and exemption of the capital gains tax for the type, it was found that the registration was made after the public announcement of the project approval, and thus, it was found that the business registration was made after the public announcement

(5) On November 14, 2002, the name of the representative director of the ○○ System, a corporation operating a communications business established with the location of ○○○-6, Incheon, ○○-dong, ○○-6, was the Plaintiff. After suspending its business on January 1, 2007, the Defendant was voluntarily closed on June 30, 2007. The above company, as a corporation selling international pre-paid cards, was fully paying the service charges through the U.S. credit card, and the above service charges were fully paid through the U.S. credit card, and the vehicle purchase charges were fully paid by U.S. ○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 11, 14 through 22, Eul 2 and 3, testimony of the witness ○ species, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years from December 1996 to April 5, 2006, in full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff entered the instant land as the representative director; (b) the ○○ System, a nominal owner of the instant land; and (c) the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years on the ground that he directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years; and (b) the Defendant: (c) held the instant land for at least nine years; and (d) held the instant land for at least eight years; and (e) deemed that he/she voluntarily cultivated the instant land for at least eight years.

C. Since the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land is prohibited from imposing capital gains tax, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.