The early 2012 Middle 5290

It is to add whether to reduce or exempt farmland substitute land.

Although the claimant asserts that he/she had resided in the location of the farmland at issue for not less than three years and has fulfilled his/her own farmland, the claimant's key farmland conservation period is less than three years, so it is difficult to apply the reduction or exemption of farmland.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

2013Gudan886 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

August 12, 2013

September 2, 2013

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 capital gains tax for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on September 2, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired an O-si O-dong 240-17, 906 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) on October 21, 201, but transferred it on October 21, 201, and on October 16, 201, acquired an O-gun O-gun 586 2,807 square meters on October 16, 201.

B. On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the instant land by entering into the regulations on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of farmland substitute land, thereby imposing OOO of capital gains tax on the Plaintiff for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and filed an administrative appeal on 2013.

4.1. A ruling of dismissal was received;

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land for the purpose of return to farming, and transferred it to the seat of the said land on October 17, 2006, and transferred it on May 3, 2007 to the seat of the said land again on December 30, 2008, and continued to grow the said land for the said period. The Plaintiff directly consumed the instant land, supplied it to a neighboring factory in the restaurant operated by the Plaintiff, and provided the Plaintiff’s wage and salary income or business income for the said period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was weak for the said period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, while intending to own the instant land for more than three years, O also acquired the instant land as a substitute land in the area of OO as well as the requirements for farmland substitute under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 67(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Article 67(2) and Article 3(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, “Where a person who directly cultivated farmland while residing in the former location of farmland for not less than three years has acquired another farmland within one year and cultivated it in a new location for not less than three years, and the area of the farmland to be newly acquired is 1/2 or more of the area of the farmland to be transferred is 1/3 or more of the value of the transferred farmland, and thus, it means that the tax amount equivalent to 10/100 or more of the capital gains tax shall not be imposed on the farmland or 20/10.

(2) In light of the following facts, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant land, and the entry of Gap evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

오히려 갑 제2 내지 5， 8호증， 을 제2 내지 5， 7호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실， 즉，① 원고는 이 사건 토지에 제1종 근 린생활시설(소매점) 부지 조성을 목적으로 개발허가를 받아 이를 취득하였고， 2005. 8. 19. 위 토지를 소재지로 하여 CC이라는 상호로 사업자등록을 하였다가 2011. 8. 26. 폐업한 사실，② 원고는 2006. 10. 17. 이 사건 토지 소재지에 전입하였다가 2007. 3. 5. OO도 OO군으로 전출하였고， 2008. 12. 30. 다시 위 토지 소재지로 전입하였다가 2012. 9. 19. OO도 OO군으로 전출하였던 사실，③ 원고는 이 사건 토지 보유기간 중 DDD이라는 상호로 부동산임대업 사업자등록을 하여 연간 최소 OOOO원 내지 최대 OOOO원의 사업소득을 올렸고， EEE 주식회사라는 법인을 설립 하여 음식점 등을 운영함으로써 최대 OOOO원의 사업소득을 올린 사실，④ 또한 원고는 이 사건 토지 보유기간 동안 FFF 주식회사로부터 적게는 연 OOOO원， 많게는 연 OOOO원의 근로소득을， EEE 주식회사로부터 최대 연 OOOO원의 근로소득을 올린 사실，⑤ 원고는 EEE 주식회사를 통하여 원고가 경작한 농작물을 판매하였다고 주장하나， 위 업체는 2010년부터 음식점 영업을 시작하였고 위 업체에서 공급한 품목은 치킨 비빔밥 등 조, 중, 석식 및 간식 등 이었던 사실 등을 종합하면， 원고가 이 사건 토지 소재지에 거주하는 기간 동안 농작물의 경작 등에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 1/2 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 영위하였다고는 인정되지 아니한다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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