early trial 2014 Mine2547.4984 (Joint)

At the time of transfer, the instant land cannot be deemed farmland corresponding to the cultivation area of landscape trees.

The fact of the transfer of land must be proved by the transferor actively, and the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that each of the lands of this case was farmland at the time of each transfer of this case.

2015Guhap349 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

December 17, 2015

2016.01.28

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On February 11, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of capital gains tax belonging to the 200○○○○○○○○○○○○ on February 11, 201.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff’s land transfer and reporting and payment of capital gains tax

1) On August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the ○○○○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○○○, ○○○○, etc. On October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax with respect to the ○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○○○○, and the capital gains tax as the ○○○○○○○○○, on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been self-employed for at least eight years, pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been making a self-defluence for at least eight years, applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○○, etc. on the remaining ○○○○.

2) On October 12, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the ○○○○○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○○○, ○○○○, etc. On December 6, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of transfer income tax by making the transfer value of the ○○○○, and the transfer income tax as the ○○○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○, etc. on the ○○○○, Pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff got self-esteem for eight or more years, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the ○○○, etc. on the ○○○, etc. on the ○○○, etc. on the ○○○, etc. on the ○○○, respectively.

B. The defendant's disposition

On February 11, 2014, on the ground that each of the instant lands was not farmland at the time of each transfer of this case, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff had not been farmland at the time of each transfer of this case, and made a disposition to impose the capital gains tax (including additional tax) for 2000 years on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

1) The Plaintiff asserted that the transfer subject to the instant disposition is limited to the transfer of ○○○○○○ and the transfer of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., on the ground that the transfer value was written by the Defendant’s written resolution of capital gains tax correction (proof No. 1) and the transfer of ○○○○○○, etc., on the ground that the transfer value was written by ○○○○○○○○○, etc., as indicated in the above A.2). However, in full view of the fact that the “income subject to summing up of the capital gains tax correction resolution” was written in the “income amount subject to ○○○○○, etc., as indicated in the above A.1) and (a) (2), the instant disposition was denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption on the ground that the Plaintiff had paid the total transfer income amount (i.e., each of the instant transfers) for eight years or longer.

(c) Procedures of the previous trial;

On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, on December 19, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s above appeal, and the written decision was served on the Plaintiff on December 22, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 18, 19, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff continued to plant and grow landscape trees on each land of this case until the time of each transfer of this case, and shipped the landscape trees, and each land of this case was farmland at the time of each transfer of this case. Therefore, the disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful and should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Determination (whether each of the instant lands was farmland at the time of transfer);

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for at least eight years, and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that "an amount of tax equivalent to 10/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from such transfer of land." Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that where a resident engages in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, or within a 20-meter radius from the time of acquisition of the relevant farmland, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for at least eight years."

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant lands was planted for landscaping purposes at the time of each transfer of each of the instant lands, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant lands was farmland at the time of each transfer of each of the instant lands, based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

1) Around September 2009, the ○○○ City requested an appraisal company, ○○ appraisal corporation, and ○○ appraisal corporation with respect to each of the instant lands and the obstacles thereof. According to each of the appraisal statements (Evidence A 14-1 and 2) prepared at the time, the ○○ City requested the appraisal of each of the instant lands and the obstacles thereto. As of September 2009, most of the instant lands were land where ornamental trees were planted and used as farmland, and the fact that many ornamental trees were planted on each of the instant lands was planted on each of the instant lands.

However, each of the above appraisal reports is merely a statement on the current status of each of the instant lands at the time of September 2009, and it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant lands was farmland at the time of each transfer, which was conducted after about two years from the fact alone.

2) The purport of the evidence No. 23 as the farmland ledger against the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is a member of ○○ City Forestry Cooperatives, ○○○ Forestry Cooperatives, and ○○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, and ○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, respectively, at the time of the transfer by the Plaintiff, respectively. The purport of the evidence No. 9-1 through No. 3 is that the Plaintiff is a member of the farmland ledger against the Plaintiff.

However, the farmland ledger is merely an internal data prepared and kept for the purpose of farmland management and the efficient promotion of agricultural policies, and it is difficult to view that the farmland ledger was prepared after confirming the fact of cultivation, and it does not seem to have been examined or confirmed as to whether farmland is self-fluent in the process of joining the agricultural cooperative members. Even if the fact of cultivation was verified, it is merely a situation at the time when the farmland ledger was prepared or the cooperative was subscribed to, and it is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff was self-fluent in each land of this case by the time of each transfer of this case. In full view of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that each land of this case was farmland at the time of each transfer, solely

3) The evidence Nos. 8-1 through 5 of the evidence Nos. 8-1 to 9-1 to 4 of the evidence Nos. 9 submitted by the Defendant is the photograph taken after completion of the packing construction of the roads around each land of this case or the aerial photography around each land of this case. According to these images, most of each land of this case did not contain landscape trees, and the landscape trees are planted only on the boundary of each land of this case or on the boundary of each road adjacent to each of the land of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that it is impossible to confirm whether landscaping trees are planted on each land of this case solely on each of the above photographs, since landscape trees planted on each of the land of this case are not well identified on the original distance. However, in the case of photographs taken after completion of the road packing work, it is impossible to confirm whether landscaping trees are planted on each of the above pictures. However, in the case of photographs taken after completion of the road packing work, the landscape gardening trees on each of the above parts (i.e., each of the land of this case) other than the road can not be confirmed, but the landscape trees on each of the above lands cannot be confirmed, and ② in the case of aerial photography, the landscape trees on each of the above lands can be confirmed on each side of the opposite parts of the land of this case, while each of the above lands of this case can only be confirmed on each of the boundary or part of the road of each of the above lands.

"On the other hand, according to subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 2 of the Farmland Act, "farmland" refers to land actually used for the cultivation of crops or for the cultivation of perennial plants regardless of its land category. According to Article 2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act, land where trees or seedlings are planted for the purpose of landscaping is excluded from farmland. The boundary of each land of this case where trees are planted for the purpose of landscaping, or the boundary of each road adjacent to each of the land of this case is seen to be a place where trees are planted for the purpose of landscaping, not for the cultivation of landscape trees, since each land of this case can not be deemed to be farmland corresponding to the cultivation of landscape trees. (4) Since each land of this case was cultivated and shipped for each land of this case until the transfer of this case, and the growing trees were shipped for the purpose of landscaping, it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that there is no objective document confirming the relation between the above person and the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

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