Daejeon District Court-2018-Gu 100221 ( August 30, 2018)

Whether it falls under one's own farmland for more than 8 years and whether it overlaps;

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was engaged in crops cultivation in the instant land or appropriated not less than half of the farming work with his own labor force, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In addition, it is reasonable to regard the first investigation as a procedure of “on-site confirmation” as it is related to the on-site verification, the confirmation of facts through the Plaintiff’s answer, or a simple inquiry accompanied therewith.

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(4) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 8-4(2) of the Framework Act on

Daejeon High Court-2018-Nu12549 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax;

AA

S Director of the Tax Office

December 05, 2018

oly 16, 2019

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. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on June 9, 2017, including KRW 210,305,420 and special rural development tax of KRW 9,362,910, shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The remainder of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff, with the exception of the following additional determination, are not significantly different from the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in the first instance court. Even if the evidence presented by the Plaintiff in the first instance court and the evidence presented by this court were re-examineed with the evidence No. 47 through 55, the judgment of the first instance court that deemed that there exists a justifiable ground for disposition of this case and that the disposition of this case does not constitute a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, is justifiable. Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of this court as to this case is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part to be determined additionally under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is cited in

2. Addition of judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition was corrected and notified after conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff twice, and all of the above tax investigation was conducted without giving prior notice to the Plaintiff, and it also violated the principle of prohibition of duplicate tax investigation. Thus, the instant disposition that goes through the aforementioned illegal procedure should be revoked as it is also unlawful.

B. Relevant provisions

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the attached Table.

C. Determination

1) The following facts are recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 2, 4, 8, 20, and 21 in Eul.

(1) Around February 7, 2017, the Defendant conducted on-site inspections on the Plaintiff’s own land and notified the Plaintiff of an internal plan from February 13, 2017 to 17 of the same month (hereinafter referred to as “first investigation during the above period”). The notice states that “on-site verification is not a tax investigation, so if the verified person does not engage in conduct beyond the scope of confirmation, or makes unreasonable requests for data, it may be corrected by requesting the protection of the rights of the taxpayer.” (2) On-site verification, the Defendant conducted on-site investigations, such as the amount of 90 minutes of written answers with the Plaintiff, and completed on-site verification that the Plaintiff was confirmed to have failed to meet the requirements for self-taxation reduction or exemption. (3) On-site verification on March 8, 2017, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of his/her opinion on the reduction or exemption of the tax amount to the Plaintiff by 30 years prior to the date of notification 15 years prior to the date of entry into the said investigation (3).

2) In light of the relevant provisions, it does not seem to be unlawful in the process of the instant disposition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in view of the plan formulated by the Defendant, the details of the Defendant’s notification to the Plaintiff, the process of the investigation, and the process of the investigation, etc., the first investigation appears to have been conducted on the spot, or on the confirmation of facts through questions and answers to the Plaintiff, or on a simple inquiry accompanied therewith, and it is difficult to see that the first investigation is conducted on the part of the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, for a considerable period of time. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the first investigation as an on-site verification procedure under Article 12-2(1)1 of the Transfer Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the first investigation was omitted on the premise that the first investigation was conducted on the premise that the first investigation was conducted on the premise that the first investigation was conducted. Next, the Plaintiff’s prior notice was prepared to enable the other party to be informed of the tax items and period subject to investigation and to exercise his right to defense by preparing for time. In this case, the Plaintiff’s prior notice cannot be found that there was any violation of the Defendant’s prior notice.

Finally, as long as the first investigation is a field verification procedure, it cannot be deemed that the second investigation constitutes a re-investigation or a duplicate investigation prohibited by Article 8-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes or Article 12(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigations.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.