If it is apparent that a factual investigation should be conducted due to objective circumstances that could be mistaken for a taxable object, the taxation disposition cannot be deemed to be void as a matter of course.

In order to determine whether to exempt capital gains tax, it is possible to accurately investigate the facts that meet the requirements for exemption, such as farmland cultivation period, farmer, and self-fluence, so it is difficult to see that the inherent defects in the instant disposition are significant and apparent.

Article 94 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of Transfer Income

Confirmation of invalidity, etc. of a disposition imposing capital gains tax, 2015 Gudan5274

AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 13, 2015

September 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 1, 2011, the Defendant of the Cheong-gu Office confirmed that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 308,218,940 against the Plaintiff for the year 2009 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 10, 1996, the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case on April 10, 1996, 19-1 Doo-Eup 19-1 Doo-Do 19-1 20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20-5 m20 m20-5 119 m24 m24 m24 m24 m20 m24 m20 m20 m209. The Plaintiff transferred the farmland of this case on October 30, 2009.

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland for at least eight years; (b) denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax; and (c) deemed the instant farmland as land for non-business use on August 1, 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 308,218,940 for the Plaintiff on August 1, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 14, 201, but was dismissed, and thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the District Court 201Gudan3140, which was dismissed on August 13, 2012, but thereafter, the Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal were dismissed, and the said dismissal ruling became final and conclusive on December 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4 through 9 (including each number in case of additional number), the whole purport of oral argument

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the farmland in this case, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the transfer without filing a long-term holding special deduction against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2004, the Defendant excluded the special long-term holding deduction for the transfer of the farmland in this case. In addition, with respect to the transfer of the land in this case, the Defendant was subject to the application of capital gains tax reduction and exemption on June 9, 2005, on the premise that the requirements for the transfer of the land in this case were met by the Defendant on the part of the Plaintiff on June 9, 2005. The instant farmland in this case and the land in this case were subject to tax reduction and exemption for the transfer of the land in this case without filing a long-term holding deduction for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s disposition in this case was null and void.

3. Determination as to the invalidity of the instant disposition

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegality in the disposition is insufficient, and its defect must be objectively obvious because it violates the important part of the laws and regulations. The defect in the taxation disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relations or factual relations subject to taxation is significant and obvious. However, if there is an objective fact that can mislead him as to the legal relations or factual relations which are not subject to taxation, which is not subject to taxation, and it can only be clarified if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relations, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if there is a defect that misleads him/her as to such defect, and thus, it cannot be said that the erroneous taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu154, Feb. 28, 1984). In light of health stand-off and relevant provisions, in principle, the transfer of farmland falls under the transfer of assets subject to taxation of capital gains tax, and thus, it is clear that the transfer income tax exemption is void even if it falls under the Plaintiff’s.

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