early 2010 Heavy2077 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

It is difficult to believe that 8 years have elapsed elapsed;

In light of the fact that a farmer is not deemed to have been living mainly and that a frequent overseas departure, etc., it is difficult to believe that he/she directly cultivated the land, and where a farmland owner cultivates land only on a intermittent basis under the condition that he/she has occupation other than agriculture, he/she shall be excluded from the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for up to eight years.

2010Guhap16593 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

O Head of tax office

June 22, 2011

July 20, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 79,050,160 on December 1, 2009 (the date of disposition was stated as December 2, 2009 by the Plaintiff, but according to the Defendant’s response, the date of disposition appears to be December 1, 2009) against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 11, 1994, the Plaintiff purchased Pyeongtaek-si and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. On July 4, 2006, the Plaintiff divided the said land into 181-1 square meters per annum 188-2 square meters per annum and 188-319 square meters per annum per annum.

B. On August 5, 2008, the Plaintiff sold 350,000,000 square meters of GATT 188-2 1319 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) to XXM Co., Ltd., and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 21st of the same month.

C. On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was self-refilled for at least eight years to the Defendant, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on KRW 76,208,11 of the calculated capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same).

D. Accordingly, on December 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 79,050,160 to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009, by deeming that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land for at least eight years (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On June 23, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on August 31, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. 1. 4 Evidence No. 6-1, 2, and 3-1 of Evidence No. 6-2, and the purport of the whole arguments No. 2-3 of Evidence No. 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the instant land, the Plaintiff cultivated rice from 1995 to 2005 from the instant land, and thereafter, in 2006 and 2007, directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight (8) years after growing bean, the instant disposition of imposition that excluded the application of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff resided adjacent to the instant land from XX 108 to July 25, 1978. around October 11, 1994, around the time of the acquisition of the instant land, the Plaintiff resided in The AAAri Ari 212. From January 3, 1997, the Plaintiff resided in the 37-3 OO (O) apartment 205 Dong 301, 1997. From August 16, 1999, the Plaintiff resided in the OO-dong 805-2 △△△ apartment 103 Dong 1001.

(2) The Plaintiff was employed in the O(O)-electronic office, and was employed by the representative director in around 1992, from around 1994 after the Plaintiff retired from the above company, since around 1994, the time when the Plaintiff acquired the pertinent land, the Plaintiff was in possession of 40% of the shares of the △ Committee from 201 to 194% since October 29, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “△ Committee”). On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff moved its principal office to the AAAA-Gu A-si 645-1 of the Republic of Korea on October 29, 200, but was on October 17, 2007, and was in possession of shares from 201 to 105 (the Plaintiff had 40% of the shares of the △ Committee from 2004 and 1005% since 2005).

(3) In addition, on November 1, 1998, the Plaintiff opened and operated Scambling, Scambling, Scambambam, ○○○○, from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2003, from Suwon-si, DD 71-1, from May 11, 2002 to December 31, 2003, from Pyeongtaek-si, EEE 292-19, from Pyeongtaek-si, from around 292 to December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff paid the mobile phone sales business from 00 to 360, from 209, to 196, from 200, to 300, from 206, to 300, from 209, the Plaintiff received the mobile phone electronic sales business from O786-21, and 776-25, from 2003.

(4) In the farmland ledger, the Plaintiff owned farmland, other than the instant land, including Pyeongtaek-si BB, 214-2, 519 square meters, 255-3 square meters, 1,144 square meters per annum 255-3 square meters per annum, AAAAro-Gu AAro-si, 767-3 square meters per annum 368 square meters, 355, 337 square meters per annum, 356, 261 square meters per annum, etc. from June 25, 198 in the instant land. From around June 25, 1998, the Plaintiff cut rice and rice for special purpose from around June 1998 to around January 4, 201 in the instant farmland, and around 255-2 and 255-3 square meters per annum.

(5) On November 17, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased permission from the head of Pyeongtaek-si to engage in development activities for the construction of warehouses, road construction, and molding of the instant land; and (b) cultivated bean in 2006 and 2007, for the reason that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the instant land as the answer; and (c) obtained permission for development activities for the construction of warehouses, road construction, and molding.

(6) On July 30, 2008, the Plaintiff joined as a quasi-member of the Seocho Agricultural Cooperative on the 30th of July 2008, and June 2009.

18.There shall be materials for agriculture that have been purchased on the basis of border.

(7) At the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land, AAAAari 212 and the instant land are located far from about 5.5km, and the Plaintiff’s OO-dong 805-2 1001 and 7 km away from the Plaintiff’s land at the time of the transfer of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8, 10, 11, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 21, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5-12, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff cultivated bee for two years from the land of this case, and stated that the land of this case was cut down in the farmland ledger, the plaintiff operated △ Committee from the time of acquiring the land of this case to the time of transferring the land of this case, i.e., the plaintiff operated mobile phone sales business, communication device sales business, and underwater market, and it seems that the plaintiff did not have been living mainly in the city. The plaintiff owned six lots of farmland in other villages in 3 other villages, and operated the above enterprises, without disclosing all the above farmland in any form. Considering the distance between the above farmland, it seems difficult to prevent the plaintiff's direct cultivation of the above farmland of this case, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to use the farmland of this case as a tea, and there was no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's direct cultivation of the land of this case was for 8 years from the time of acquiring the land of this case to the time of transferring the land of this case, and there was no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's direct cultivation of the land of this case was within 9 years.

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.