Daejeon District Court-2015-Gudan-726 ( August 25, 2016)

Whether it satisfies the requirements for the self-defensation of land

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is insufficient to recognize that the substitute land of this case meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of substitute land required by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by directly cultivating it for not less than three years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2016Nu12545 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

X.x

O Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Gudan726 Decided August 25, 2016

November 24, 2016

December 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's transfer income belonging to the plaintiff of July 5, 2014 to the plaintiff of the year 2011.

The imposition of tax KRW 11,029,890 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of March 4, 201 of the same year with respect to **7 1,495 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of August 10 of the same year to A on September 2, 201.

B. On February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff and BB acquires 3/5 shares of 2/5 of them at auction, and B/B remaining 2/5 of the remainder.

After completing each registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares, the above land on June 21 of the same year is over 10%.

3 Division into 977 square meters in paddy field (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") and 1-63 square meters in 1-63 square meters in % Dong.

On July 13 of the same year, as to 2/5 of the shares of bb in the land of this case, b.

The ground for each partition of co-owned property as to 3/5 of the Plaintiff’s share in the land above 1-63% Dong 1-63

The registration of ownership transfer is completed.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land to the Defendant on November 30, 201, and the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant on November 30, 201 on farmland substitute

Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011); Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012)

Article 67 (Partial Amendment of the above Act and its Enforcement Decree) of the United States of America

On the premise that the application of the exemption rule is a case of application, the scheduled return of capital gains tax was made.

D. From February 26, 2014 to March 25, 2014, the Defendant’s on-site confirmation of the land of this case

Then, the details of the fact-finding certificate submitted by the plaintiff on the ground of self-defluence of the land of this case

The plaintiff is different from his statement, and the plaintiff is the professor of the Gangwon-do University located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

The transfer of land in this case shall not be deemed to have been engaged in farming, etc., and therefore, the transfer of land in this case shall be

The Plaintiff on July 5, 2014, on the ground that the provisions on reduction and exemption are not applicable, and the transfer income accruing to the year 2011.

The tax amounting to KRW 11,029,890 (including KRW 90,990 and additional tax amounting to KRW 2,414,196) was determined and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

E. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

However, the claim was dismissed on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence A Nos. 1, 33, 34, and Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including serial numbers);

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired the instant land on April 13, 2007; and (b) obtained the land on September 2, 2011;

Since the transfer to the Plaintiff, on February 20, 2012, 3/5 of the instant land, and 2/5 of the remainder of July 13, 2012, were acquired as substitute farmland for each of the instant land, the instant land continues to exist until now. Although the instant provision is applied to the transfer of land, the instant disposition, which excluded the application thereof, is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The provision of the instant reduction or exemption requires the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the farmland substitute land for not less than three years.

A person who resides in an area, etc. in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located shall use crops in his/her own farmland;

A person who is engaged in cultivating or cultivating perennial plants at all times or at least 1/2 of farming operations;

The transfer date of the previous farmland while cultivating or cultivating by power; and

or 1 year of purchase by consultation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor; or

acquisition of another farmland within 2 years and new farmland for at least 3 years;

In case of farming while residing in the area of newly acquired farmland, the area of farmland to be transferred;

At least 1/2 of the value of farmland to be newly acquired, and at least 1/3 of the value of farmland to be transferred.

section 30 of this title.

(2) On the other hand, the requirements prescribed by the instant reduction or exemption regulations are as follows.

A person who asserts reduction or exemption has the burden of proof (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996 delivered on October 21, 1994).

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993, etc.

(3) First, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s cultivation of crops or perennial in the land of this case 1 and 2

At least 1/2 of the farming works engaged in cultivating plants or with its own labor;

We examine whether or not farming or growing, i.e., self-defense.

(A) Gap evidence 20 to 24, 38 to 61, and witness Ddd and e of the first instance court

(1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, 1.fff, hhh is an objection by the Plaintiff.

From the acquisition of one parcel of land to the time of transfer on September 201 and thereafter to May 2014, 201

이 사건 1토지에서 고구마, 땅콩, 고추, 감자, 양파, 시금치 등을 자경하였다'는 취지의, jjj은 '원고가 이 사건 1토지를 취득한 후 2007년부터 매년 감자, 땅콩, 옥수수, 호박, 고구마, 시금치, 양파 등을 자경하였고, 2011. 9.경 이 사건 1토지를 양도한 후에도고구마, 양파, 고추 등을 자경하였다'는 취지의, kkk은 '원고가 2012. 2. 20. 이 사건2토지를 취득한 후 2012년에는 매실, 돼지감자, 꽈리고추, 복숭아 등을, 2013년도에는 매실, 옥수수, 녹두, 호박, 팥 등을, 2014년도에는 매실, 콩, 들깨, 팥, 녹두 등을 자경하였다'는 취지의, mmm, ppp, bbb은 '원고가 이 사건 2토지를 취득한 후 2014. 6.경까지 매년 녹두, 팥, 호박, 옥수수 등을 자경하였다'는 취지의, 김용진, kkk, ee규는 '원고가 2014. 6. 17. 이 사건 2토지에 포크레인 작업을 하기 전까지 매실, 복숭아, 돼지감자, 꽈리고추를 자경하였다'는 취지의, qqq, ddd는 '원고가 이 사건 1토지를 자경하였다'는 취지의 각 사실확인서에 서명하였고, 이들은 모두 이 사건 1, 2토지 인근의 거주자 또는 경작자이거나 이 사건 1, 2토지의 소재지와 같은 행정구역인천안시에 주소를 두고 있는 자들인 사실, ② 제1심 증인 ddd는 '원고가 이 사건 1토지에서 고구마, 고추를 심은 것을 보았다'는 취지로, ee규는 '원고가 이 사건 2토지에서 2012년에 매실과 돼지감자를, 2013년에 녹두, 옥수수, 콩 등을, 2014년에 녹두, 팥야콘, 들깨를 재배하여 판매한 것을 알고 있다'는 취지로, fff은 '원고가 이 사건 1토지에서 고구마, 옥수수, 고추를 재배하였고, fff 자신도 원고로부터 허락을 받아이 사건 토지 일부(약 20평, 원고의 주장에 의하면 약 80평 내지 90평)에서 고추를 재배하였다'는 취지로 각 증언한 사실, ③ rrr, ee규는 '2007년 내지 2013년 사이에원고로부터 고구마, 양파, 땅콩, 매실, 약콩, 녹두, 돼지감자 등을 구입하였다'는 취지의, 조ss, 전tt, 정uu, kkk, 신zz은 '2007년 내지 2014년 사이에 원고로부터

It is recognized that the signature of each confirmation document stating that the above crops have been received has been signed.

(B) However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 29, 35 through 37, and No. 6

the following circumstances known to each entry or video as a whole by taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings:

In light of the above facts, the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is added to the above facts of recognition.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, at least three years on the land of this case 1 and 2, respectively, had self-covered.

(3) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The land of this case is 1,495 square meters for the land of this case, and 977 square meters for the land of this case, which is not smaller than a small area.

The plaintiff, other than a professional farmer, does not use any particular agricultural machine alone, and 1, 2:

(b) that the Plaintiff continued to do so with a variety of crops as alleged by the Plaintiff.

In light of the fact that it is relatively free in using hours as high-priced professors, it is easy to understand

It is difficult to do so.

2) The land of this case seems to be surrounded by relatively flat farmland around the surrounding area.

In the face, the instant land 2 has a slope in itself, and the one side is adjacent to the high wall of the 2nd campus of the T&&A University, which is more known to the instant land than the instant land 2, and the location conditions for crops cultivation, etc. are considerably far away compared to the instant land 1 (it refers to the Plaintiff’s statement that, even in the auction information data at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land 2 through auction, it is called “the cadastral fluence and implied answer status” as the substitute land for the instant land 1, that is, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land 2 as the substitute land due to the need for cultivation after transferring the instant land 1, cannot be easily understood.

3) The fact that the Plaintiff, in the instant land Nos. 1 and 2, made a self cultivation is ambiguous.

The plaintiff's own prepares and fffs, not written by aff, etc. signed by both them;

The signature is received, in particular, fff is cultivated from the Plaintiff on part of the land of this case.

A person who has obtained such benefit with permission, and Dd is a relative as a partner in a fff's external village.

BB acquired the land of this case by auction with the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012.

In addition, Kim Yong-jin, on June 17, 2014, prepared a confirmation document at dd's request at the time of the on-site verification by a public official belonging to the defendant on March 7, 2014, that the plaintiff's own land was self-filled, that the plaintiff's own land was first considered at the time of receiving the confirmation document from the plaintiff, mmm, P, P means neighboring residents or farmers of the land of this case 1, 2014, and arq means the confirmation document at d'd' request at the time of the on-site verification by the public official belonging to the defendant.

In light of the fact that it appears to be not, it is difficult to believe it as it is.

4) At the time of the on-site inspection by a public official belonging to the defendant on March 7, 2014, the witness D in the first instance trial D shall be as follows.

'The court of first instance testified that 'the plaintiff testified that 'at the time when the plaintiff testified in the court of first instance on December 11, 2015, 'at the time much more time than the time when the above field was confirmed,' and 'd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d from the plaintiff.

In addition to the fact that there is a relative relationship as a pilot, his testimony is overall.

No evaluation of credibility may be conducted to raise credibility.

5) A factual confirmation that the Plaintiff purchased or received crops from the Plaintiff also

Not written by rr, etc. signed by all of them, but by the plaintiff himself/herself and rr, etc.

the Plaintiff’s signature was received, and the Plaintiff submitted the certificate of the above fact to the first instance;

In the above confirmation letter of fact that the person signing the confirmation has purchased or received the product

purchase or receipt, as stated accurately in theory, its weight or unit(s).

The three-year transfer of approximately nine (9) years prior to the end of that time shall be taken into account, in a short period of time, this is very exceptional.

In light of the fact that it would be difficult to believe it as it is and even if it is, the Plaintiff.

rrr et al. purchased or received crops from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

In addition to the land in this case 1 and 2, the Plaintiff shall have the 1,139 square meters and the Cheongju-si, the 1,139 square meters and the Cheongju-si.

구$$리 286 전 2,251㎡도 소유하고 있는 점, 원고의 형 오@@도 농작물을

In light of the fact that the crops are cultivated or cultivated, such fact alone shall not

1. It cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff obtained from land 1 and 2 as a result of its own minorness.

6) Use the function of “Nttp:/map.naver.com”

(1) approximately KRW 17,00,000,000,000,000,000

Sector Distance (14.37km), approximately 10 minutes for the land of this case (3.23km) and ② The Plaintiff’s workplace impulse

북 소재 !!대학교에서 이 사건 1토지까지는 약 1시간 20분 거리(61.01km),

Up to the second land of this case, approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes (71.17km) and ③ The Plaintiff’s workplace, one soil of this case

approximately 1 hour and 38 minutes (7.44km) and the land of this case 2

It can be known that it is about about 1 hour and 34 minutes (78.21km) through the Plaintiff’s residence, and that it is the Plaintiff.

In the residence of this case, a relatively close distance may be deemed to be from the residence of this case to the land of this case, but the remaining route

of the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is not easy for the Plaintiff to continue to grow up with various crops.

The distance seems to be the street.

7) In the following guidance services (htp:/map. daum.net) the land of this case in 2009 and

Even if a satellite map was searched in 2011 and the satellite map 1, 2013 of the instant land 2013, it is not confirmed in the instant land 1 and 2, unlike agricultural crops cultivation is confirmed in other surrounding farmland. However, it is only confirmed in the satellite map in 2015, which was after the instant disposition.

1) In the following guidance services, satellite guidance seems to be conducted every two years.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received the scheduled return of capital gains tax from the Plaintiff on November 30, 2011.

In the instant disposition on July 5, 2014, on the ground that the additional tax increase due to the instant disposition on the ground that the increase in the amount of the additional tax, the instant disposition asserted as unreasonable, but the instant disposition, including the amount of additional tax, is fundamental.

The cause of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff did not report the scheduled transfer income tax on the land of this case.

prior to the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax amount on the land of this case and its equivalent amount.

from the defendant, who is the tax authority, includes the plaintiff.

We examine whether the scheduled return, etc. of capital gains tax by many taxpayers is legitimate and reasonable.

In such cases, it is inevitable to require certain time due to restrictions on personal and physical conditions, etc.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to suspect that the Defendant delayed such confirmation and examination or the time of the instant disposition to impose penalty on the Plaintiff, the part of the instant disposition cannot be deemed unreasonable, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(5) Therefore, whether the Plaintiff satisfies the remaining requirements stipulated in the instant reduction and exemption provision

With respect to the disposition of this case, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is eventually without merit.

§ 302.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

(c)