National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2011-0302 (202.06)

It is inappropriate to file a lawsuit without going through a prior trial procedure or without going through a prior trial procedure.

It is illegal to file a lawsuit after 90 days from the date of receipt of the written decision dismissing the request for examination as to the first disposition, and without filing a request for examination or a request for adjudication seeking revocation of the second disposition, it is illegal to file a request for modification of the purport of the second disposition at the date of pleading for revocation of the first disposition.

2012Guhap6934 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of the tax office

October 12, 2012

November 30, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 on December 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The Defendant’s rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on May 16, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 10, 1994, the Plaintiff acquired 000 m2 square meters (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) from an OO-ri 000 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On October 2, 1985, the Plaintiff transferred the said farmland to thisCC on June 16, 201, and reported and paid KRW 000 capital gains tax on August 23, 201.

B. On August 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the transfer of the farmland in this case constitutes a case requiring the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land, and thus, refund of KRW 000 won of capital gains tax.

C. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) determined that the transfer of the instant land to the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land; (b) rejected the said request for correction; and (c) considered the transfer of the instant farmland as a transfer of non-business land, and corrected and notified KRW 000 (Additional Tax Imposition) of capital gains tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant First Disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition No. 1 and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 21, 201, but was dismissed on February 6, 2012.

E. On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of capital gains tax to the effect that “the total period of self-sufficiency will exceed eight years if the farmland in this case was cultivated directly by the decedent for at least one year after inheritance from the decedent, and the decedent and the Plaintiff added up the period of self-sufficiency,” and the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of capital gains tax for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland. The Defendant rejected the said request for rectification on May 16, 2012 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant, among the instant lawsuit, sought the revocation of the instant disposition No. 1, has set the filing period, and the part seeking the revocation of the instant disposition No. 2 is unlawful without going through a previous trial procedure.

B. According to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Articles 61(1) and 68(1), administrative litigation against the disposition of this case and the disposition of refusal of a request for transfer income tax, cannot be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the above request for examination or adjudgment must be filed within 90 days from the date when it becomes aware of the disposition. However, when adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the items in the evidence No. 18, No. 1 and No. 11, and (i) when a certified tax accountant agent agent agent for the plaintiff's request for examination as to the disposition of this case receives a written decision to dismiss the above request on February 13, 2012, and (ii) the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the disposition of this case on May 30, 2012; and (iii) when the plaintiff's large part of this case's request for examination or adjudgment, the plaintiff's request for cancellation of the disposition of this case is unlawful.

다. 설령 이 사건 제2처분이 이 사건 제1처분과 서로 내용상 관련되는 처분으로서 원고가 이 사건 제1처분에 대한 행정심판을 거친 이상 이 사건 제2처분에 대한 행정심 판을 거칠 필요가 없는 것으로 볼 수 있다고 하더라도 다음과 같은 이유로 피고의 이 사건 제2처분은 적법한 것으로 인정된다. 즉， 피상속인의 자경기간 및 원고의 1년 이상 자경사실은 이를 주장하는 원고가 입증하여야 하는데， 원고는 이 사건 농지를 상속받은 것이 아니라 증여받은 것에 불과 할뿐더러 갑 제6 내지 8호증， 갑 제9 내지 13호증의 각 1， 2， 갑 제14， 15호증， 갑 제 16호증의 1 내지 3， 갑 제17， 19호증의 각 기재 및 증인 이EE의 증언만으로 원고 자 신이 이 사건 농지를 8년 이상 그 농작업의 1/2 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 자경 하였다고 인정하기도 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 을 제5 내지 8 호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 다음의 사정들， 즉 ① 원고는 1984년생으로서 이 사건 농지를 취득할 당시 만 10세 불과했고 양도할 당시는 27세로서 2004년경부터 2006년경까지 군 복무를 하고， 2006년경부터 2008년경까지는 QQQQ 주식회사에서 근무하는 등 농사일을 직접할 만한 상황은 아니었던 것으로 보이는 점，② 원고의 큰아버지인 이EE이 이 사건 농지에 관한 2009년 쌀직불금을 수령한 점，③ 이 사건 농지의 인근 거주자인 장RR은 세무공무원의 현지확인조사 당시 "이 EE이 예전부터 계속하여 이 사건 농지에서 농사를 지었다"라고 진술한 점 등에 비추 어 보면 원고의 큰아버지 이EE이 이 사건 농지를 대리경작해 온 것으로 인정된다. 따라서 원고의 자경 주장을 부인하고 양도소득세 경정청구를 거부한 이 사건 제2처분은 적법하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.