Review Transfer 2009-0032 (Law No. 22, 2009)

Whether a person has been self-employed for at least eight years;

According to the evidence submitted, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land until the transfer of farmland.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 24,761,190 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on December 15, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff, who acquired on February 13, 198, transferred the land AAAri 345 Ma3,187 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) to the original corporate city with other real estate on May 30, 2008. With respect to the instant land, the Plaintiff calculated the gains from the transfer of its assets on its own land for at least eight years by applying Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and filed a voluntary report and payment of KRW 48,261,915 on July 14, 2008.

B. On December 15, 2008, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of and exemption from the instant land for at least eight (8) years on the ground that SongD, the Plaintiff’s model, received direct subsidies for preserving rice income, etc. on the instant land (hereinafter “direct subsidies”) from 2002, and issued a disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 76,617,390 for transfer income tax reverted to year 2008.

C. On February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 13, 2009. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision on June 22, 2009 for partial acceptance of a request for examination on the ground that the instant land did not constitute non-business land, and accordingly, the transfer income tax amount of the instant disposition was changed to KRW 24,761,190.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1.2.7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff resided in the vicinity of the instant land from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer or at least from the time of acquisition to the time of acquisition of the instant land to the time of transfer, and directly cultivated the instant land, the instant disposition that denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction and exemption for at least eight years is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

The testimony of Gap, Eul, Eul, and KimCC alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer of the land of this case or from the time of transfer of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (Article 3, Eul, and Eul No. 11-1 and 6 of this case). According to each of the records, Song-do received subsidies on the land of this case since 2002, and it is recognized that the plaintiff was the time when the plaintiff actually cultivated the land of this case in the tax dispute advisory procedure requested to the taxpayer protection officer in relation to the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.