Suwon District Court 2013Gudan15345 ( October 20, 2014)

Any disposition that exclusion from reduction or exemption is deemed to have not been made for not less than eight years shall be justified.

In light of the fact that the apartment house in the speculative area is exempted from taxation as one house for one household, and that the apartment house is seen to have been residing in the above apartment house, and that the airline house does not seem to have been used as farmland, it is difficult to recognize that the apartment house was self-employed for not less than eight years.

2014Nu689444 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

door-○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gudan15345 Decided October 20, 2014

May 20, 2015

June 10, 2015

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 disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 187,233,700 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “A” No. 10 to 16 (including paper numbers) which is insufficient to recognize the illegality of the disposition of this case as evidence additionally submitted at the trial; “The grounds for the judgment of the first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except to dismiss or add the corresponding parts of the judgment of the first instance,” and “The same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

The actual accounts are as follows: "Nos. 2, 10, 11, and 13"; "Nos. 5, 6" are as "Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9."

In light of the 3rd page 21, the actual contents of the tax shall include in advance the following contents:

④ The Plaintiff asserted that “the instant house was actually located in Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○,” but the land category was previously registered in the same Ri, where Kim○, a relative Kim○, was residing in the same household.” However, Kim○, who was the owner of the instant land, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking removal, etc. of the instant house on or around June 19, 2009. In the content certification attached to the complaint, “the Plaintiff used the instant house as the weekend farm, and was residing in the ○○○○○○,” and the Plaintiff did not appear to be able to sell the Plaintiff’s land, etc. by avoiding the absenteeism provision, and the instant lawsuit was delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of ○○○, ○○, ○○, which was not the Plaintiff’s resident registration, but the Plaintiff’s attempt to deliver a copy of the instant house to the Plaintiff, which was under way the Plaintiff’s attempt to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff.”

The actual contents of the tax shall be added between Forms 2 and 3, which shall include the following:

Meanwhile, according to Article 95 (1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the former Income Tax Act), "non-business land under Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act" is excluded from those subject to special deduction for long-term holding, and Article 104-3 (1) of the former Income Tax Act.

According to subparagraph 1 (a) of subparagraph 1 of Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act and subparagraph 1 of Article 168-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22580, Dec. 30, 2010), where the ownership period of land is at least five years, if the owner fails to reside in his/her farmland or fails to cultivate his/her farmland for a period exceeding two years from among five years immediately preceding the date of transfer, the period exceeding one year from among three years immediately preceding the date of transfer, and the period exceeding 20/100 of the ownership period of the land, the farmland shall be deemed land for non-business.In light of the evidence and factual relations as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff does not reside in the location of the land of this case or did not cultivate the land directly since the land of this case constitutes a long-term special deduction under Article 104-3 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 104-3 (1) 5 (a) of the former Income Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.