early 2010 Heavy1864 ( December 30, 2010)

(1) A person who was not able to do so for at least three years after the acquisition of the substitute land

In full view of the fact that most of the substitute land at the time of the on-site investigation was unable to find a trace of agricultural history, and that the Plaintiff did not self-refiscing for a certain period of time, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not self-refiscate for not less than three years after the acquisition of the substitute land. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem

2011Guhap4115 Revocation of disposition of capital gains tax and additional dues, etc.

IsaA

The director of the tax office

October 19, 2011

December 21, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 118,270,00 against the Plaintiff on March 2, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 19, 199, the Plaintiff acquired on March 8, 2007, 1/2 shares of 1/2 of 00 (hereinafter referred to as "the first substitute land") among 873 square meters in Seocho-gu, Seocho-do and 595 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as "previous land") prior to 467, 00-0, and 902 square meters in the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as "previous land") from the transfer on March 8, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired on March 27, 2007, 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the second substitute land") among 00,000 square meters prior to 00,000,0000, and 1/2 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the second substitute land") in the first substitute land.

B. On May 14, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereafter the same shall apply) on the ground that it acquired the instant substitute land by filing a report on capital gains tax on the previous land.

C. On November 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff did not cultivate the instant substitute land as a result of the on-site investigation, and on March 2, 2010, imposed KRW 118,270,000 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff, excluding the application of Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 6, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 13, 15, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) occupied the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share in the land of this case as sectionally owned co-ownership; (b) owned by other co-owners; (c) damaged the inundation of the land of this case due to centralized rain in 2009; (d) at that time, the Plaintiff could not have been forced to suffer from the flooding of the land of this case; and (e) the disposition of this case for which the Plaintiff imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff by deeming that the Plaintiff did not self-refisciate even though the period confirmed by the Defendant was when it was November, 200.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

(1) In the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger, the Plaintiff stated as follows: (a) from May 2, 2007 to May 22, 2007, 436.50 square meters (in addition to the name of an Eup or a Myeon), which is the primary land, the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger: (b) from May 22, 2007; and (c) from March 18, 2010 to 483 square meters, which is the second land; and (b) from March 18, 2010 to 3.319 square meters in the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger of ASEAN, KimD leased 301 square meters prior to February 301 to 319 square meters in the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger.

(2) At the time the Defendant conducted a field investigation on the instant land around October 2007, the Plaintiff cultivated cries necessary for the restaurant from the instant substitute land.

(3) The Plaintiff resided in 307-2 adjacent to the land of this case and operated a restaurant under the trade name of OOri 00 to OO movables, but discontinued on March 13, 2009, and the lessee is carrying on a real estate rental business by leasing OOri 00 land.

(4) On July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff joined an agricultural cooperative as a member of the early agricultural cooperative. From April 2009 to October 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff purchased agricultural materials equivalent to KRW 73,000 from January 201 to December 201 of the same year. However, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN KimD purchased agricultural materials during the above period.

(5) The Plaintiff has a brush, a frush, a frush, and a frush with a frush.

(6) On July 12, 2009, KimD suffered flood damage due to inundationing around 3,319 square meters, including OOri 00,000 OOri, and 3,319 square meters. While the competent administrative agency registered the damage, as regards the second-class land, the flood damage due to the above concentration is not registered with the competent administrative agency.

(7) Around November 2009, Defendant 2 conducted a field investigation on the instant substitute land; Defendant 2: (a) was extremely limited to the size of the instant substitute land; and (b) was infinite with most of the land; and (c) construction materials were stored in part; and (d) the secondary substitute land was installed with a sloping room attached to a restaurant and a plastic house for the storage of materials.

(8) In the process of the above on-site investigation, village residents were string and shouldered in the part adjacent to the Orisan 00 land near the 2nd land, and the remainder was being used as a string site and a road, and around June 2009, 50 male showed that they grow a shoulder in the above land. One of the strings was created in the same month, and on July 2009, 2009, 2ndring land was prepared and issued a written confirmation to the effect that the 2nd land was not stored in the water.

[Reasons for Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 6, Gap evidence 8-1 through 4, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of whole video pleadings

D. Determination

Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008) provide that the Plaintiff shall be granted tax reduction equivalent to 10/100 of the capital gains tax on the existing land if the Plaintiff acquired farmland at least 1/2 of the area of the farmland to be newly acquired as a necessity for cultivation, or 1/3 of the value of the farmland to be transferred for 20 years or more without satisfying the requirements for 20 years or more for 20 years or more, since the Plaintiff did not own land for 20 years or more, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased farmland for 20 years or more without satisfying the requirements for 9 years or more for 20 years or more for 2 years or more for 3 years or more for 20 years or more for 3 years or more for 20 years or more for 3 years or more for 2 years or more for 20 years or more for 2 years or more for 2 years or more for 3 years or more for 3 years or more for the Plaintiff purchased farmland.

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.