Daegu District Court 2015Guhap372 ( October 25, 2015)

Whether a notice of designation of a land scheduled for replotting can be deemed the date of designation of land scheduled for replotting.

Notwithstanding the title, the notification of the designation of the land scheduled for replotting is applicable to the date of designation of the land scheduled for replotting when compiling the fact of notification of the designation of the land scheduled for replotting under the Land Readjustment Projects Act, and the land in this case transferred after three years have elapsed from the date of designation shall not be

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2015Nu6379 Revocation of disposition rejecting capital gains tax rectification

OO

O Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Guhap372 Decided August 25, 2015

October 21, 2016

December 2, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection of each of the respective requests for correction of capital gains against plaintiffs AA, BB, CCC, DD, ED, EE, FF, and GG on July 1, 2014 is revoked on July 28, 2014, which was made to plaintiffs HH on July 28, 2014.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to the newly asserted by the Plaintiff at the trial. As such, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows.

○ The Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 26959, hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") is "Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016; Presidential Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act), the 8th "Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act", the 9th "Enforcement Decree of the same Act", and the 12th "Enforcement Decree of

○ The 6th judgment of the first instance court is to add “each entry of No. 21, No. 21” to the grounds for recognition of the 6th judgment of the first instance court.

○ “Nos. 5 and 6 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court” means “Nos. 5 and 6 of the 5th judgment of the first instance court.”

Each description of evidence and testimony of KK witness shall be considered as " alone."

○ In Part 3 of the 8th decision of the first instance court, "for union members" later, the notice of designation of land substitution area is given.

Article 56 (3) of the former Land Readjustment Project Act, which is a legal provision, shall be stated as the basis provision and added.

(c)

○ The 8th to 3th 4th 4th of the first instance court's ruling "written report of land substitution planning" shall be "written report of land substitution."

-friendly.

After the 8th judgment of the first instance court, "(4)" was added to "(4) the effective date of the designation of the land to be reserved for replotting is not separately indicated in the notice of this case, but in such cases, the effect of the designation of the land to be reserved for replotting takes effect from the time when the landowner, etc. was notified of the

○ Subsequent to the 16th judgment of the first instance court without relation, the phrase “(and, as seen earlier, Plaintiff HH and III seems to have never been actually cultivated at the time of transfer of each land owned by them)” is added.

○ The following shall be added between conduct 18 and 19 of the first instance judgment:

3) Determination as to whether the instant land was farmland at the time of the transfer date

According to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(4) and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person residing in a farmland has cultivated directly for not less than eight years, and did not designate a reserved land for replotting, the provisions on capital gains tax reduction and exemption shall apply to the farmland as of the date of transfer in order to obtain the application of capital gains tax reduction and exemption provisions, and the burden of proof as to the requirements for such reduction and exemption lies on a person who asserts exemption from capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002). Meanwhile, even if the land is classified as farmland on the public register, the land which is not actually cultivated as of the date of transfer cannot be deemed as farmland as of the date of transfer, unless there is any special circumstance, such as farmland being used as farmland by the landowner or temporarily in a state of suspension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu7422, Nov. 12, 191).

In accordance with the above facts and the purport of the testimony and the entire argument of the KK witness of KK.

The following circumstances: (a) the instant project was discontinued on August 2, 1997 after the commencement of May 22, 1997 by the Corporation’s default on the payment of construction works; and (b) the instant project was approved on July 13, 2005; and (c) the said construction was completed around November 2009; (d) the instant land can be classified by the reserved lot number; and (e) the instant land could not be classified by the previous lot number; (e) each of the images listed in subparagraphs 1-3, 12-3, 13-3, 14-3, 15-3, 16-3, 17-3, 17-17, 17-2, 207, 200, 20-3, 3G, 17, 17-4, 3G, and 13-5, 2G, 3G, and 6G, 3G, and 17-5.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case, which refused to file a request for correction of capital gains tax, is deemed legitimate only by one mother.

○ The 1476-5 lot number of Plaintiff 1D's land number in attached Form 11 of the first instance court's decision is 1458-1.

Jinaly,

2. Additional determination

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act excludes farmland, other than farmland, for which three years have elapsed since the date of the designation of the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the land for replotting was designated according to the instant notification. Thus, even if the land as the land as the land as the land as the land for replotting was designated according to the instant notification, this constitutes a case where the land as the land as the land for replotting was not the land other than farmland, which constitutes the land as the land for the land as the land as the land for the land as the land as the land for replotting. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land as the land in this case was designated as the land as the land for the land as the land as the land for replotting regardless of whether three years have elapsed from the date of the designation of the land as the land as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so dismissed.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds.

It is so decided as per Disposition.