Farmland is not farmland because it was used at the time of transfer as a biochemical store, not farmland.

The part where a plastic house is located in the key land shall be used for the purpose of selling or selling flowers, etc. rather than for the purpose of growing and cultivating flowers, etc. at the time of transfer, and it does not fall under farmland at the time of transfer.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2014Gudan5178 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Capital Gains Tax

IsaA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

March 16, 2015

April 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2000 by the former Cheong-gu branch Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 0, 2000 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 23, 1963, the Plaintiff transferred 00 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2, which was acquired on July 23, 1963, to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant land”) on October 15, 201, 200 m2 m2, m200 m2,000 m2,000 m2 (the same m25, 2000-0 m2, hereinafter “the instant land”). The Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land, based on the Plaintiff’s possession of the said land for at least eight years, and filed an application for capital gains tax reduction and exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (including additional tax on February 2010 m205, 2013) on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland at the time of transfer.

D. The plaintiff filed a request for examination against the plaintiff, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the request for examination on October 00, 000.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the land of this case constitutes "farmland subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax since the Plaintiff cultivated flowers, etc. by installing plastic houses, etc. as one of the 49 years or more, the disposition of this case against the Plaintiff is unlawful by denying the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case based on the illegal status photographs by the Defendant.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, regardless of the requirements for taxation or non-taxation or tax reduction, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction and exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201). Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that, as a answer, the land to be used for cultivation shall be the farmland subject to reduction and exemption regardless of its land category on the public register, it shall be defined as the farmland subject to tax reduction and exemption, which is actually used for farming regardless of its land category on the public register.

In addition, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the farmland is subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, unless there are special circumstances.

As to the fact that the land of this case constitutes "farmland" subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the above Act at the time of the transfer date, each of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is difficult to believe it, or it is insufficient to recognize it merely, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the records and images of Eul evidence No. 5 and the fact-finding with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of this Court, around October 00, 2000, two years prior to the expropriation date of the land of this case, the members of the mutual sign board of "000" was operated in one unit of land of this case, and in the remaining one unit of land, "000" was operated. At the same time, each of the above members of the houses was operating a business to wholesale and retail against the general public, with the trade name of "00," and the non-party 00 had completed business registration as to the remaining land of this case with the purpose of "00,000, the lot number of the land of this case, which was 00 :00 :00 :00 : 200 :00 : 00 : 00 ; 000 ; and 000 : 00 ; 200 ;

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.