Daegu District Court 2008Guhap2189 (209.08)

Early High Court Decision 2008Gu0956 (Law No. 24, 2008)

Farmland not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer, which is not a state of suspension of land.

The land shall be confirmed as of the date of transfer, and even if the public record is farmland, the land which is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer unless it is in a state of temporary closure, whether it is by the landowner’s own or by another person, or temporarily.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 Defendant’s imposition of KRW 100,000,000 on January 3, 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the first instance court; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Parts to be dried;

As to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the judgment of the first instance court between the 4th 11th 16th son and the 16th son shall be made as follows.

[2] According to the above facts, although the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years after acquiring it, since around 1997, about 10 years before the plaintiff transferred the land of this case, the land of this case was no longer used as farmland and it was leased to another person, and the floor of the land of this case was continuously used as the site for the place of business (math repair store) before the transfer date. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the land of this case cannot be deemed as a temporary resting condition, and there are no other materials to regard it as a temporary resting condition. Thus, the land of this case cannot be deemed as farmland as of the transfer date, and therefore, it does not constitute the land subject to reduction of capital gains tax.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that only the requirements for self-Cultivating are satisfied for at least eight years in order to be eligible for reduction of capital gains tax on self-Cultivating farmland, and that it does not require an additional cultivation even at the time of transfer. However, in full view of each provision of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, its Enforcement Decree, and its Enforcement Rule, in order to be exempted from capital gains tax on self-Cultivating farmland for at least eight years, it should be verified that it is farmland as of the date of transfer, and for this purpose, even if it is actually cultivated or is not cultivated as of the date of transfer, it should be proved that it is temporarily in a state of temporary suspension. Therefore, the plaintiff'

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

3. Conclusion

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