National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0196 ( October 10, 2011)

The disposition to exclude the reduction or exemption of the reduction or exemption of the reduction or exemption of the reduction or exemption of the reduction or exemption of eight years, because the period of living

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land was inherited without completing the registration of ownership transfer even though the acquisition price of the land was paid, the disposition excluding the reduction or exemption for eight years for the reason that the period of direct cultivation was less than eight years since the date of acquisition such as transfer of ownership, etc. other than the date of commencing the inheritance was considered to be

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gudan1733 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

June 8, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition to impose KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 22, 2010 is revoked (it is apparent that it is a clerical error of December 22, 2010 as stated in the written complaint’s claim).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The amount of reduction and exemption of O00 00 duo 2,892 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”) is the land substituted on December 23, 1989 by 00 duo 1,828 m20 m2 (hereinafter “the first land before the land substitution”) and Doo 1,144 m2 (hereinafter “the second land before the land substitution”) on December 23, 1989, and the Plaintiff received a registration of ownership transfer from thisGG on December 22, 1976 with respect to the first land before the land substitution, and with respect to the second land before the land substitution, from BB on March 23, 1977.

B. On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for not less than eight years, when filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on December 22 of the same year, and at least eight years.

C. As to this, the defendant directly resided in the first and second locations of land before replotting.

From the date of completion of the registration of ownership transfer (as of December 22, 1976, March 23, 1977, and April 2, 1983, it is merely a maximum of six years and three months from the date of the completion of the registration of ownership transfer (as of April 2, 1983, from the date of transfer of resident registration to 000, to the date of Seoul Mapo-gu OOdong, Mapo-gu, Seoul), and cannot be deemed directly cultivated for at least eight years, and the application of the Special Provision was excluded, and the instant disposition was taken on December 22, 2010, imposing capital gains tax of 24,267, and 220 won for the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s father JongF acquired the land before replotting from the seller on December 22, 197 and March 23, 197, when the Plaintiff acquired the two land before replotting on or around February 1967, and around February 1969, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer. After the Plaintiff died on April 8, 1969, the Plaintiff, a sole heir due to consultation division, received each registration of ownership transfer from the seller on March 23, 197, and the date on which the Plaintiff acquired the first and second land before replotting, was April 8, 1969. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land from the first and second land before replotting was on April 8, 1969, when the Plaintiff acquired the land from April 8, 1969, and from the date of leaving the taxi company, which was a taxi company in 1987, until it was employed, or at least until the date of the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation under Article 9 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the Plaintiff’s disposal was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008, hereinafter the same) provides that "the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to agricultural income tax shall be reduced by 100/100 of the transfer income tax on the land which is directly cultivated for eight or more years by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the location of the land, and Article 66 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008, hereinafter the same) provides that "the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be reduced or exempted", and that the transferor shall also be subject to reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the land under Article 66 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (see the Supreme Court Decision No. 2094Da196494, supra.

(2) Specific determination

First of all, in the above case, the plaintiff had been located in the Si/Gun/Gu or its neighboring Si/Gun/Gu 10 before April 2, 198, and there is no evidence to recognize it. The plaintiff's 1, and 2, before February 1969, purchased the plaintiff's father 1, and 1, 2, and 9 were purchased at the above time 1, 3, 4, 9, 1, 9, 1, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 3, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 1, 3, 9, 1, 3, 2, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 3, 1, 3, 9, 1, 2, 9, 1, 3, 1, 96, 2, 3, 9, 3, and 9.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.