Whether the land of this case constitutes an object of reduction or exemption from capital gains tax;

The plaintiff was found to have failed to meet the requirements of re- village and self-defense for the previous farmland and substitute farmland, and the original disposition is legitimate.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2016Nu108

The moving-in report was made with the "Housing", and C.D, the plaintiff's wife, B and son.

DoDo Do 2, May 22, 2013, a move-in report was made to the domicile of this case, and the Plaintiff in 2013 and 2014

The plaintiff and the plaintiff under the farmland ledger, using a restaurant, marina, bank, etc. located in the area of Jincheon-gun;

The Plaintiff’s wife owns the land of this case under its own name (e.g., fruit trees).

On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered as land, and on October 20, 2014, the substitute land of this case to the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service.

Until the registration of an agricultural business entity was made for the purpose that farmland is cultivated, such as marination, etc.

(3) The plaintiff's mother's mother's mother's child around July 2014 is residing in the Republic of Korea.

In this case, the plaintiff's moving-in report is that he resides in the house of this case.

(4) The housing of this case is located in around 1963.

25.92m2 is merely a lot of apartment houses which the previous plaintiff and his family had resided (Yinman-si 691 M.M.)

The Yang Village Puo apartment (134.842 square meters), and the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1091 Macro luxol 1091 Macro

The apartment house (156.876 square meters) and the current family of the Plaintiff from February 27, 2014.

apartment [53 square meters in the city of Yongsan-gu, the 53-ro, the Sinin village New apartment (129.823 square meters in the city of Yongsan-gu)]

In light of the scale, etc., the move-in report was made to the domicile of the instant case from May 2013.

- The argument that the Plaintiff’s family members, total six persons, were residing in the instant house is acceptable.

The plaintiff and the plaintiff according to the housing management ledger of the new apartment guard room of the modern village of the Dong-si of the Dong-si of the above Dong-si of the plaintiff and the plaintiff

The State that, on August 26, 2014 and August 27, 2014, the wife received the delivery of the apartment to the above apartment;

According to the medical care benefits content of the Public Health Insurance Corporation, the plaintiff shall be the plaintiff from 2012 to 2014.

The fact that the second hospital and the pharmacy are regularly used can be confirmed, 6.

The above farmland ledger submitted by the Plaintiff with respect to the requirements of direct cultivation in the dry farmland for at least three years;

The certificate of registration of an agricultural business entity and the certificate of cultivation of residents residing in Jincheon-gun shall be given priority to all others.

It is difficult to believe the content of the above certification that it is not clear whether it is prepared.

The resident's certificate (Nos. 40-1 through 41-3) is also about the substitute farmland of this case.

[ not] The Plaintiff’s entry of the above farmland ledger, the certificate of registration of agricultural business entity, etc. alone

It can be known that the substitute farmland is owned as a self-defluence and actually in the substitute farmland of this case.

not specifically from any time to any time, 7.

The plaintiff transferred to the domicile of this case on March 19, 2012 in the warden, and the mother-child division in the house of this case

Before October 2013, he/she together resided in the Republic of Korea, and prefabricated formula to "Sacheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-do."

After newly building a house, he/she resided in a place with his/her wife and C, and on October 28, 2014, he/she did so.

Claimant that the land was moved to the domicile and submitted to the community resident's certificate of residence; however, the

After the intentional reply was submitted, the housing of this case has been partially reversed and the housing of this case has been narrowed.

Around October 2012, when a mobile house was installed in the foregoing new-type land and reside together with the wife, the following:

On April 2013, 2013, the Court argued that a consortium-type mobile house is installed and resided therein.

On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff may be recognized until the fact that the move-in report was made with the land in the new world;

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to easily believe that the Plaintiff’s statements were not consistent, the Plaintiff submitted

With the sole evidence of this case, the plaintiff resided in the substitute farmland area of this case and resided in the substitute farmland of this case

It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that he/she has been engaged in cultivating crops for not less than 3 years, and it is different.

There is no evidence to prove.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the previous farmland of this case and the substitute farmland of this case for not less than three years, respectively.

The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act by deeming that he did not reside in the farmland area of this case.

The disposition of this case that did not apply the capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions to farmland substitute land prescribed by this Act

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it seems to be correct.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

judgment.

***

ㅁㅁ세무서장

The second instance decision

National Rotations

December 7, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's transfer to the plaintiff on December 1, 2014 that reverts to the plaintiff in the year 2012.

The imposition of KRW 188,878,230 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “Article 2.(c)(2)(1)(i) of the first instance court’s judgment from 4th to 5th 9th eth eth eth eth eth 9; “23” of the fourth eth eth 16th eth eth eth 16; “Article 45 to 67” is added; “Article 2.3(c)(3) of the 6th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.; and

B. Furthermore, on January 19, 2012, with respect to whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, and resided directly in the location thereof for three years or more, the following circumstances are comprehensively acknowledged as follows: (i) Gap, 10 through 13, 15, 24, 26 through 29, 31, 33 through 41, 44, 69, 69, 70, Eul, 6 through 15, and 17, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings; (ii) The Plaintiff and his wife, the Plaintiff’s wife, had acquired the instant substitute farmland on March 19, 2012, within one year from the date of the transfer of the previous farmland; and (iii) the building of the instant substitute farmland located in the area of the instant substitute farmland (hereinafter “the building of the instant case”).