Suwon District Court 201Mo5606 ( October 19, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy2841 ( October 14, 2011)

The provisions on self-Cultivating farmland reduction and exemption cannot be applied because it does not fall under farmland as of the transfer date.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) Part of land is converted into a site for the purpose of using it as a parking lot, and the remainder is left unattended, sand, etc., or landscape trees are planted, and there seems to be no part cultivated as a aerial farmland. Therefore, the provisions on reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland cannot be applied since it does not fall under farmland as of the date of

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Nu41597 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Song XX

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap5606 Decided October 19, 2011

July 11, 2012

August 22, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first island shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on July 8, 2010 against the plaintiff on July 8, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court is used for this case are as follows. The reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance shall be as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O's second 17th anniversary of the transfer of farmland is regarded as farmland at the time of transfer.

The plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case after the joint inheritance of the land of this case, but the plaintiff re-bed and re-bed for not less than 8 years until the time of the death of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

Since it is "from the third 16th to the fourth 4th th th th th ," it is as follows:

According to Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008), the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in a location of land for not less than eight years, which is subject to agricultural income tax (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection), shall be reduced or exempted. According to Article 66 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009), the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree is farmland of which he/she cultivated for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer. According to Article 66 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15151 of Apr. 20, 2010).

The plaintiff et al. succeeded to the land of this case on April 29, 1998 and transferred it to BaB on September 18, 2008, and according to the whole purport of the Gap evidence No. 4 and the arguments, the plaintiff et al. may recognize the fact that the plaintiff re-establisheds and re-speaks from the land of this case for not less than eight years before the plaintiff Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs dies. The period of re-speaks and re-speaks by the defendant, the co-inheritors, shall be deemed to be the period of re

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.