Review Transfer 2009-095 (2009.07.09)

Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for self-farmland for 8 years;

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was safling for more than eight years beyond the fact that the Plaintiff was safling in the above farmland in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that there is another day to concentrate on the public official, the fact that the farmland was not registered as farmland in the farmland ledger, and the current status

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 17,361,60 on April 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff and the imposition of KRW 131,133,020 on January 16, 2009, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On March 22, 1995, the Plaintiff: (a) on March 22, 1995, donated the AAA Dong 425 square meters; (b) on June 426-2 of the same Act, 354 square meters; and (c) on June 29, 1085, acquired one-third of the same 441-7 square meters and owned one-third of the same 129 square meters; and (d) on December 18, 2006, each of the above farmland was expropriated into the Korea Land Corporation.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the grounds that each of the above farmland was self-sufficient for not less than eight years upon filing a report on capital gains tax reverting to 2006. However, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption, and on April 1, 2008, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 17,361,660 for capital gains tax reverting to 206.

C. On the other hand, on November 7, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired 1,416 square meters in BBri-do BBri-3 Hasung-si, Kimpo-si, and 724-3 square meters in Dori-si on December 4, 2003, and acquired 42 square meters in Dori-si 724-3 Dori-si on April 19, 2007, and transferred DDri 88-1 Dori-129 square meters in Dori-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on March 27, 2008, and acquired 936 square meters in Dori-ri 88-1 Dori-29 square meters in Dori-si, 88-2 317 square meters in Dori-3 88-3 Dori-4 88-4 Dori

D. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by deeming that the Plaintiff’s return of capital gains tax reverted to year 2007 constituted substitute farmland for farmland under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. However, the Defendant denied the application for reduction or exemption, and on January 16, 2009, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 131,133,020 for capital gains tax reverted to year 207.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 5

2. The plaintiff's master;

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff: (a) cultivated spawn, drilling, spawn, spawn, etc. in farmland or cultivated spawn trees, etc., and (b) left the school before his work, and (c) 1/2 or more of the said farming work were the Plaintiff’s labor force at a low time or on holidays; and (d) the said farmland directly cultivated crops, such as spawn, spawn, spawn, etc., without recognizing the Plaintiff’s application for each of the above tax reduction and exemption as lawful.

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008) Article 69

Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620, Feb. 22, 2008)

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010)

Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 on February 22, 2008) Article 67

4. Determination

(a) Whether capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted for self-arable farmland;

In full view of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where there exists a fact that a resident living in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located for at least eight years or in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto has cultivated himself/herself for at least eight years from the time of acquiring the farmland until the time of transferring the farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land shall be reduced or exempted, and where the plaintiff satisfies the above conditions, (1), (2), and (3) concerning

The evidence of the above grounds for reduction or exemption is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff himself/herself had been satisfed for not less than eight years beyond the fact that the plaintiff had been satisfed in the farmland above in light of the circumstances, such as the entries of Gap evidence 4 through 8, the testimony of witness satisf alone, the statement of evidence No. 11, the plaintiff's submission of the defendant's submission, the fact that the plaintiff was not recorded as farmland in the farmland ledger, the fact that the plaintiff was satisf in the farmland above

(b) Whether capital gains tax has been reduced or exempted for substitute farmland;

In full view of Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in order for the Plaintiff to be subject to reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the Plaintiff’s substitute farmland, the Plaintiff resided in the area in a Si/Gun/Gu where the said farmland exists or in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than three years, and cultivated directly from the said farmland, and the said farmland acquired within one year from the date of transfer of the said farmland should be cultivated while residing in the location of the farmland for not less than three years, so

In addition, the plaintiff should prove the requirements for reduction or exemption, and there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the above evidence alone sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has satisfed the farmland of the above paragraph 4 for more than three years.

C. Sub-decision

If so, there is no illegality such as the plaintiff's complaint.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.