Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Organization-1026 ( November 24, 2016)

Requirements for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for inherited farmland

The total of the self-competitive periods of the decedent and the heir does not meet the requirements for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for less than eight years;

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Daejeon High Court-2016-Nu-13579 ( April 27, 2017)

AA

The Director of Budget Office

National Flag

oly 2017.13

2017.27

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 60,516,220 for the Plaintiff on May 12, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications: (c) and (d) of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Determination as to the self-defense of the plaintiff for at least one year after his/her death.

The burden of proving the fact that the land transferred while residing in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years is a requirement for reduction of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland is a taxpayer who asserts the exemption of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002).

Article 66 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "if an inheritor continues to cultivate any inherited farmland for at least one year, the period acquired by the predecessor and cultivated by the heir shall be deemed the period of cultivation by the heir."

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land for more than 10 years after the Plaintiff succeeded to the land, and that the Plaintiff cultivated the said land for more than 10 years. As such, the Plaintiff first acknowledged the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she had cultivated the instant land for more than 10 years, by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 7, and Nos. 12 through 16, the following circumstances, namely, the instant land was first listed in the farmland ledger around June 2014, the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her own her own her own her her own her own her own her own her own her own her her own her own her own land

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the cultivation period of the inheritee should be added is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

The instant disposition that the Plaintiff deemed that it did not meet the requirements for self-regulation reduction and exemption for at least eight years on the land at issue of this case is lawful.

2. 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 claim is revoked and dismissed.