Where crops are temporarily planted on some land by conducting an investigation into the actual state of crop compensation for EP works, it shall not be deemed farmland in a temporary state of temporary suspension.

Where crops are temporarily planted on some land because it is imminent to investigate the actual state of crop compensation for EP construction when determining whether farmland is farmland as of the date of transfer, it shall not be deemed farmland in a temporary state of temporary suspension.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2015Gudan54080 revocation of disposition imposing capital gains tax and special rural development tax

AA

Director of the District Office

July 24, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of ○○○○○. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the Plaintiff 201 and the imposition of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 4, 201, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and transferred land for public use to EP on January 18, 201, on the ground of an agreement acquisition, and made a preliminary return on the transfer income tax on February 28, 201 by applying Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act with respect to reduction and exemption of transfer income tax on self-arable farmland.

B. Recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff resided for not less than eight years, the Defendant: (a) deemed that 428§³ of the entire land of the instant case is a temporary holiday; (b) applied the said reduction and exemption provision on the ground that the remaining 425§³ (hereinafter the remaining land of this case) does not constitute farmland at the time of transfer; (c) applied the said reduction and exemption provision on the ground that the said provision does not constitute farmland; and (d) applied the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provision on the land, etc. used for public works under Article 77 of the said Act, on ○○○○○○○○, by applying the said provision to the Plaintiff on the imposition of capital gains tax for 201 and imposition of special rural development tax for 00

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on ○○○○○. ○○○○, but received a decision of dismissal on ○○○. ○○. ○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 2, 3, 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The entire land of this case is a farmland in which the Plaintiff cultivated a string, mathing, heating, string, shouldering, etc. along with ASEAN BB, and the Plaintiff cultivated a string, string, string, and large wave in Ga, etc., and the disposition of this case which recognized only a part of the entire land of this case as farmland is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) In order for the Plaintiff to have the capital gains tax reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, etc., the pertinent land must be cultivated directly while living in the location of farmland for not less than eight years, and the relevant land shall be farmland as of the date of transfer, and land not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed farmland as of the date of transfer, unless it is not used as farmland by the landowner’s own or by another person or temporarily in a state of temporary suspension, and it does not constitute land subject to capital gains tax exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5003, Jun. 23,

2) Since there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff resided in the location of the entire land of this case for not less than eight years, it is examined as to whether the Plaintiff was using the remaining land of this case as farmland around January 18, 201 when it transferred the entire land of this case to EP Corporation.

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the description and status of evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and the testimony of CCC by the witness, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was using the remaining land as farmland at the time of transferring the entire land of this case.

① From 19 △△ to 19 △△△△△△△, adjacent to the entire land of this case, the construction of a gas station was carried out at ○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff could not set a farmer’s house on the entire land of this case during the pertinent period. Subsequent to the Plaintiff’s assertion, they were taken on November 23, 200, May 200, 200, and October 2, 200, respectively, 200, 200, and November 21, 200, 200, and April 8, 200, the entire land of this case appears to have only one plastic house, but does not seem to have been planted with agricultural crops.

② On June 3, 2010, E.S. conducted a survey on the actual condition of crop compensation for the Plaintiff, and confirmed that there are agricultural crops or storages for farmers in some of the land of this case. On June 5, 2010, air carriers around that time showed that agricultural crops were planted in part of the entire land of this case.

③ At the time of October 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff that crops were planted on the entire land of this case as of October 1, 2010, the photographs of No. 9-1 through No. 3 are not verified by the photographer, and even if taken on the above date and time, it cannot be confirmed that crops on the photograph were planted on the remaining land of this case among the entire land of this case.

④ The witnessCC testified to the effect that the high wave was involved in the entire land of this case around January 201, 201. Furthermore, the witness testified that the high wave was serious even around October 2, 200, and around November 21, 200, and around November 21, 200, the witness bears no credibility of the overall witness testimony as a whole, because it is inconsistent with the shape of the airline margin (No. 8 evidence 6, 7).

⑤ Ultimately, the remainder of the instant land does not seem to be a temporary state of absence (the Plaintiff does not claim that it is a temporary state of absence) and the Plaintiff seems to temporarily plant crops on the instant part of the instant land by investigating the actual state of compensation for the said crops.

3. Conclusion

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