Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap66 (No. 12, 2011)

National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2010-0196 ( October 12, 2010)

Any disposition that excludes capital gains tax reduction or exemption for substitute farmland is legitimate.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the area of the substitute farmland is at least 1/2 of the transfer farmland area or that the value of the substitute farmland is at least 1/3 of the transfer farmland value, and in full view of the fact that the substitute farmland is not residing around the substitute farmland, and that the substitute farmland has been revered in the substitute farmland, the disposition that excluded the transfer income tax reduction or exemption for substitute farmland is legitimate.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

Shin XX

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap66 decided August 12, 2011

March 7, 2012

March 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2007 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2010 and KRW 000 of the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of “determination.....” between the third-party 18 and fourth-party 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The part used in the trial (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment");

A. In relation to the fact that the farmland acquired by the Plaintiff exceeds 288.72 square meters at the time of its acquisition among the farmland acquired by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize only the descriptions of the health room, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Gap evidence No. 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 8-1 through 3, and Gap evidence No. 9, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit to further examine the remainder.

[Along with the above, the cultivation of crops on a part of land, the main purpose of which is clear as forest land, is only a temporary use of land to the extent that does not interfere with its main purpose, and cannot be deemed as a so-called self-arable farmland by specifying only the above cultivation part (Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9709 delivered on November 14, 1995). The following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are as follows: ① land category of the substitute farmland in this case; ② land size of the substitute farmland in this case is 8,628 square meters, ② land size of the substitute farmland in this case is 1,420.15 square meters, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is only 13% of farmland to be used as farmland in this case. ③ The Plaintiff and his family members seem to have worked as daily workers in Seoul and Gyeonggiwon, ④ The Plaintiff’s construction area of the substitute farmland in this case from around 2009 to 282 square meters, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the substitute farmland in this case was made.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.