National Tax Service Examination Transfer 2010-0324 ( December 23, 2010)

It is difficult to recognize that he/she resides in the area of substitute farmland and has cultivated substitute farmland directly.

Since substitute farmland does not clearly distinguish between the area and boundary for each co-owner, it is possible for co-owner to act as a substitute for the farmer of substitute farmland, most of the transportation cards were used in Seoul, and there is no evidence to recognize the payment of monthly rent for house alleged to have been leased, etc., it cannot be deemed that substitute farmland was residing and cultivated directly at the seat of substitute farmland.

2011Guhap4252 Revocation of disposition, etc. of imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

port of origin

October 27, 2011

November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax of 63,930,282, local income tax of 2007, 6,390, and 020 won on the Plaintiff on August 13, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased 4,299 m2, and 330.5 m29 m2 (hereinafter “the previous farmland”) from among the 000 m2, Seocho-gu Seoul OOdong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 23, 2004.

B. On March 24, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the previous farmland to EP on the ground of a consultation on the land for public use, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 26th of the same month, and reported and paid KRW 51,669,180 upon the transfer of the previous farmland on May 29 of the same year.

C. On November 14, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired 861 shares of 3,180 square meters from among 000 O-ri O-si O-si O-si O-si O-si O-si O00, 3,180 square meters (hereinafter “the substitute farmland in this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on December 18, 200.

D. On January 9, 2008, the Plaintiff considered that the acquisition of the instant substitute farmland satisfies the requirements for reduction of capital gains tax as substitute land for farmland, and applied for reduction of capital gains tax of 51,669,180 won for the instant previous farmland, and received a refund of the said capital gains tax on April 30, 2008.

E. On August 13, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 63,930,282 of the transfer income tax for the year 2007, the local income tax for the year 2007, and KRW 6,390,020 for the local income tax for the year 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff had not resided in the seat of the instant substitute farmland in accordance with the result of follow-up management for the instant substitute farmland by the head of Seocho Tax Office (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on December 23, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired the previous farmland of this case and resided in the seat of the previous farmland (including adjoining land; hereinafter the same shall apply) for not less than 3 years, and acquired and cultivated the substitute farmland of this case within 1 year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland of this case (specifically, the plaintiff asserted that on October 30, 2008, the plaintiff provided a moving-in moving-in report and resided in the substitute farmland of this case while moving-in report after moving-in to another house located outside the house located outside the Ori-ri-ri, Ori-ri, 00 in the neighboring land of this case). The income from the transfer of the previous farmland of this case was reduced or exempted from the transfer income tax due to the substitute farmland of this case under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the disposition of this case on a different premise shall be revoked by unlawful means.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

(2) According to Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010); Article 67(1), (2) and (3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person who has resided in the previous location of farmland for not less than three years and has cultivated another farmland within one year (two years in cases where land is expropriated by consultation, expropriation under the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works or under other Acts) from the date of transfer, and the area of new farmland is 1/2 or more of the area of farmland to be acquired is 1/3 or more of the value of transferred farmland; and (3) The purpose of the provisions governing transfer income tax for large land under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is to ensure that he/she resides in the previous area of farmland for not less than three years and to encourage the transfer of farmland directly within three years, and thus, it is necessary to reduce or exempt the amount of tax equivalent to 100/10 or more of capital gains tax for new farmland cultivation.

(2) Review of this case

이 사건에서 원고가 위 ②의 요건인 3년 이상 대토농지의 소재지에 거주하면서 이 사건 대토농지를 직접 경작하였다는 점이 모두 증명되었는지 여부에 관하여 본다. 이에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는 갑 제4 내지 10호증, 갑 제18, 19, 22, 23, 27호증 (가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 영상, 증인 이EE, 최FF의 각 증언과 원고 본인신문 결과가 있으나, 이는 다음에서 보는 증거나 사실관계에 비추어 원고의 주장사실을 뒷받침하는 증거로 보기 어렵거나 부족하다. 즉, 갑 제3호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 을 제3 호증, 을 제7호증의 3의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정，㉮ 증인 이EE, 최FF은 원고가 2008. 10.30.경부터 원고의 아들인 서GG (2003년생)과 함께 용인시 처인구 OO면 OO리 000 소재 주택의 바깥채에 거주하였고, 위 서GG은 용인에서 유치원을 다녔다고 각 증언하였으나, 원고는 위 서GG이 서울에 있는 친정집에서 거주하였고, 서울에서 유치원을 다녔다고 하고 있으며, HH어린이집 원장 작성의 재원증명서(갑 제11호증의 1)에는 위 서GG이 2008.3. 1.부터 2009. 10. 30.까지 서울 서초구 OO동 68번지 소재 HH어린이집에 재학하였다고 기재되어 있는 사실 및 증인 이EE은 원고와 친척관계(작은 어머니와 조카)에 있는 사실 등에 비추어 위 증인들의 각 증언을 그대로 신빙하기 어려운 점，㉯ 이 사건 대토 농지를 포함한 용인시 처인구 OO면 OO리 000 전 3，180㎡의 공동소유자는 원고의 아버지(이II)와 친척들(박JJ, 안KK)로서 이들도 위 토지에서 소나무 등 농사를 짓고 있는데 위 토지는 공동소유자별로 면적이나 경계가 명확히 구별되어 있지 않아 공동소유자들이 각자 독립된 경작을 했다는 것은 매우 이례적이고 오히려 이들이 이 사건 대토농지의 농사를 원고 대신하여 지었을 가능성을 완전히 배제할 수 없는 점, ㉰ 원고가 임차하여 거주하였다고 주장하는 용인시 처인구 OO면 OO리 000 소재 주택의 소유자는 원고의 작은 아버지인 이LL(증인 이EE의 남편)인 점，㉱ 또한 원고가 이LL와의 임대차계약 체결일은 2008.10. 30.이라고 하는데, 이때는 종전농지 양도일로부터는 1년을 경과하고 대토농지 취득후 거의 10개월이 지난 시점이고, 임대차 계약에 따라 윌세(10만 원)를 실제로 지급하였는지도 명확하지 않은 점(원고는 그 증거로 갑 제9호증의 1 간이영수증 등을 제출하고 있으나, 이는 사후에 얼마든지 작성될 수 있고, 금융자료가 아니므로 이 증거만으로 윌세지급사실을 인정하기에는 부족하다), ㉲ 원고가 2007. 11. 14.부터 2010. 3. 31.까지 사용한 교통후불카드 사용내역상 대부분의 사용이 서울내에서 이루어진 것에 비추어 원고가 주로 서울에서 거주하였던 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면 원고가 이 사건 대토농지의 소재지 인근에 거주하면서 이 사건 대토농지를 직접 경작하였다는 점을 인정하기 어렵거나 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.