early 209west3963 ( December 30, 2009)

The propriety of the disposition of this case as non-business land, deemed not to be self-sufficient;

In light of the type and scale of the plaintiffs' vocational management business, the number of days overseas residence, etc., such as the fact that two gas stations have been operated for the period of holding land and the average monthly 6 days stay abroad, etc., it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs have been self-employed.

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

Note 4300 Ma300 Ma300

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The imposition of each transfer income tax of KRW 258,295,480 against Plaintiff OA and OB on April 7, 2009 and the imposition of KRW 258,295,480 on April 7, 2009 by the Director of the Seocho District Tax Office is revoked on April 7, 2009.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs acquired one-third share of HG LL-2 308-2,645 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from HaF from HaF, and transferred the instant land to ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. on November 1, 2007, after acquiring one-third share of 308-2,645 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax base by applying the general tax rate to the gains from the transfer of the instant land, and paid KRW 22,429,80, respectively.

C. The Defendants, on the ground that the land of this case constitutes non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act because the Plaintiffs did not own the land of this case, applied the heavy taxation rate of 60% to the transfer margin of the land of this case, and on April 7, 2009, Defendant Seocho District Tax Office corrected and notified the Plaintiff OA and OB to the Plaintiff, and the director of the DefendantCC Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of each transfer income tax of 258,295,480 won to OD (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)Recommendations of the plaintiffs;

The fact that the plaintiffs did not cultivate the land of this case must be proved by the defendant. The fact that the plaintiffs did not cultivate the land of this case appears in the self-certification and the farmland ledger issued by the competent authority, and in addition, even though several people confirmed the fact that they did not cultivate the land of this case, each disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiffs did not own the land of this case merely because they were engaged in a separate occupation or engaged in a business.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

(1) Plaintiff OA is residing in PP-dong 1446-1 of Seoul PP-dong 1446-2 of the same Act; Plaintiff OB is residing in the same 1648-2 of the same Act; Plaintiff OD is residing in the Seoul PP-dong 56-3 of the same, and the distance from Plaintiff OA and OB’s residence to the land of this case is 20km. The distance from Plaintiff OA and OB’s residence to the land of this case exceeds 20km.

(2) In the farmland ledger at the time of the transfer of the instant land, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff, in addition to the instant land, is 1.249 m2 and 625 m20 m2 in UU-si, JJJJ 111 m2 and m25 m20 m2 in UU-si, JJ Do, JJ 112 m25m2 and m249.5m2 m2 in UU-si, Do, and the Plaintiff OB, in addition to the instant land, in addition to the instant land, the Plaintiff, in the farmland ledger as at the time of the transfer of the instant land.

(3) 원고 오AA는 이 사건 토지의 보유기간 동안 계속하여 주식회사 ♥♥♥♥의 상무로 재직하였고, 서울 NN구 QQ동 51-2, 서울 NN구 ZZ동 87-8 소재 각 부동산의 부동산임대업을 영위하였는데 위 부동산임대업의 수입금액 합계는 2004년 528,000,000원, 2005년 1,092,000,000원, 2006년 1,172,000,000원, 2007년 1,144,000,000원 정도이 다.

(4) During the holding period of the instant land, Plaintiff AB operated five businesses including operating two gas stations with annual sales (as of 2006 and 2007) exceeding 10 billion won each. Around April 19, 2005, one of the aforementioned gas stations was opened and operated on April 19, 2005, and a part of the business operated around 2005 and around 2006 was closed.

(5) During the retention period of the instant land, Plaintiff DuD has engaged in real estate rental business in Seoul NSSdong 638-6, Seoul NNdong 87-8, and the total amount of income of the said real estate rental business is KRW 582,00,000 in 204, KRW 730,000 in 205, KRW 69,000 in 2006, KRW 731,000,000 in 207, and KRW 731,000,000 in 207.

(6) During the retention period of the instant real estate, the number of days of departure and overseas residence of the Plaintiffs and their families is as follows.

- Plaintiff OA 88 days, wife Kim II 726 days, JV 1,219 days

- Plaintiffs 1B 256, 258, MaM 906, YY 22

- 원고 오DD 163일, 자 오▼▼ 819일, 자 오△△ 819일

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 2 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The key issue of this case is whether or not the plaintiffs' self-definites the land of this case. In full view of the following circumstances where the purport of the entire arguments was acknowledged as follows, the plaintiffs did not self-definite the land of this case, and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 15, and 18 are not trusted, and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 are not interfered with the above recognition, and there is no counter-refinites.

First, in light of the plaintiffs' occupation, type and size of business operated, and the number of days of overseas residence, etc., it is difficult to believe that the plaintiffs, who seem to have no particular experience in agriculture, used time to engage in their occupation and own farmland in the instant land and UU city by using remaining time.

Second, although the plaintiffs asserted that they cultivated the land of this case for the purpose of self-consumption of organic farming and fishing villages, it is difficult to view that they cultivated the land of this case for the purpose of self-consumption in light of the fact that the plaintiff and his family members have resided overseas for a considerable period of time.

Third, if the plaintiffs cultivated the land of this case at the end of several years, they can submit objective proof data on the payment of various expenses, but only submit evidence on the cost of work at the farm road and drainage and a written confirmation of the people in the surrounding areas, and do not submit objective evidence on the fact of self-defense.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, which reported the transfer of the land of this case to a non-business land on the ground that the plaintiffs did not own the land of this case, is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.