early 201J 2749 ( November 09, 2011)

It shall not be deemed that the cultivation of substitute farmland has commenced within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to find out a special reason for the farmland shed in light of the fact that the manufacturer operates a manufacturing company without a small size of sales and leases a factory, and raises monthly profits, it cannot be deemed that it commenced the cultivation of substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of previous farmland, and that it did not submit objective data related to the disposal of agricultural products, etc.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Gudan3003 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX Kim

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

May 7, 2012

June 4, 2012

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 000 on February 7, 2011 against the Plaintiff of KRW 200 for the transfer income tax of 2008 shall be revoked. (In the case of a clerical error in February 15, 2011, written in the written complaint’s claim, “ February 7, 2011.”

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed 1,785 square meters of the Mai-si, Mai-si, Mai-ri, 000-10, and transferred the previous farmland on December 29, 2008, and on May 27, 2009, applied Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) that provides for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the farmland substitute land in relation to the transfer income tax for the year 2008 following the transfer of the previous farmland in this case.

B. On December 14, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired 2,579 square meters (hereinafter “the substitute land of this case”) prior to 000 Ori-ri, O2,579 square meters (hereinafter “the substitute land of this case”).

C. On February 7, 2011, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2008 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not commence the cultivation of the instant substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, and that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant substitute farmland and did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 1, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal to the Tax Tribunal on August 1, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on November 9, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland and continued to cultivate the farmland of this case directly to the present day. As such, income from the transfer of the previous farmland of this case constitutes the reduction and exemption of transfer income tax due to the substitute farmland of the previous farmland of this case under Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition that did not recognize the reduction and exemption of transfer income tax on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1), (2), and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010), where a person who resided in the former location of farmland for not less than three years and has cultivated while residing in the new location of farmland for not less than three years, within one year, and the area of new farmland is not less than half of the area of farmland to be acquired or one third of the value of transferred farmland, the amount of tax equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on transfer income accruing from the substitute farmland shall be reduced or exempted. The purport of the provisions of Article 67(1), (2), and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be to protect his own cultivation and encourage the new cultivation of farmland by guaranteeing free substitution, and thus, it shall be interpreted that the area of farmland to be newly acquired and transferred within three years or more.

(2) In this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had entered into the farmland of this case for not less than 3 years while residing in the location of the farmland of this case within 1 year from the transfer date of the previous farmland of this case, and whether the farmland of this case for not less than 3 years has been cultivated, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s entry into the farmland of this case for 10 years from the transfer date of the previous farmland of this case for 10 years from the transfer date of the farmland of this case, ④ the Plaintiff’s entry into the farmland of this case for 20 years from the transfer date of the farmland of this case for 10 years from the transfer date of the previous farmland of this case, and ④ the sale of the above farmland of this case for 20 years from the transfer date of the farmland of this case for 10 years from the transfer date of the farmland of this case for 10 years from the transfer date of the farmland of this case, and ④ the sale of the farmland of this case for 20 years from the above transfer date.

3. Conclusion

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