early 209 Heavy0288 (2009.04.08)

Reduction of or exemption from the transfer income tax for self-farmland for 8 years or more.

It is difficult to view that there was no evidence to deem that a university has worked as a professor holding concurrent positions in the university, there was no data to deem that the university owned the farming equipment or farming machinery necessary for cultivating the land, a significant portion of the land was leased, and the compensation was planted as a long-term nursery, and that the compensation was paid to others for eight

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1.Each request of the plaintiff shall be accepted.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 111,910,000 for the Plaintiff on July 10, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1988. 12. 12. 원고의 조부인 망 김☆☆으로부터 부천시 ★★구 ○○동 66 전 2,552㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 증여받았다가 2006. 6. 9. ◎◎주택공사 에게 양도하였다.

B. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff made a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income for internal use that the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant constitutes the requirements for reduction and exemption of transfer income tax by transferring “self-arable farmland for not less than eight years” under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On July 10, 2008, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 111,910,000 for the year 2006 according to the volume of the instant land, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have done the instant land for eight years, and thus, it does not fall under the requirements for reduction or exemption.

D. On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal due to an objection to the disposition of this case, but was dismissed on April 8, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From 1988 to 2000, the Plaintiff, at the time of donation of the instant land, cultivated the instant land on behalf of the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s age from around 1988, to the time of transferring the instant land to her father, Kim Il-young, and “self-debrison” includes not only the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation, but also the case where the Plaintiff had his family members living or living together with the same household, and thus, the instant land should be deemed to have been cultivated for not less than 8 years, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

(1) The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without law is applicable not only to the cases that meet the taxation requirements, but also to the cases that meet the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction and exemption. It is reasonable to expand or analogically interpret the requirements for non-taxation or tax exemption and exemption as favorable to the taxpayers without any justifiable reason, which leads to a result contrary to the principle of fair taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). Thus, a person who asserts concurrent holding concurrent office for farmland shall be liable to prove the fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13,

(2) As to the instant case, each of the evidence of evidence Nos. 5-1 through 9, Nos. 7-1 through 3, and Nos. 8 through 14, are indicated as follows.

그러나 을 제5, 6, 7호증, 을 제8호증의 1, 2의 각 기재, 이 법원의 한국토지주택공사 인천지역본부장에 ◎◎ 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 김●●는 1986년경부터 2004년경까지 금화목욕탕을 운영하였고, 1986년경부터 1992년경까지는 주식회사 현대주택을, 1990년경부터 1992년경까지는 ☆☆□□□□ 주식회사를, 2002년경부터 2005년경까지는 ☆☆건설 주식회사를 경영한 사실, 2004년경부터 2007년경까지 학교법인 ◇◇학원◆◆대학교에서 겸임교수 등으로 근무한 사실에 비추어 김●●가 이 사건 토지를 경작하였다고 보기 어려운 점, 김●●나 원고가 이 사건 토지를 경작하는데 필요한 농기구나 농기계를 보유하였다고 볼 아무런 자료가 없는 점, 이 사건 포지 중 상당부분을 이����가 임대하여 장미묘목 등을 식재 하였고, 그 보상금도 이����가 지급받은 것으로 보이는 점, 이 사건 토지 위에 있던 지 장물 보상금 내역서에는 '영업용냉장고, 탈모기계, 수동부화기, 석유버너 대형, 닭잡는 대, 토종닭(230두), 양봉 등'에 대하여 기재되어 사실에 비추어 이 사건 토지에는 토종닭을 키우거나 토종닭을 요리하는데 필요한 시설이 있었을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 위 증거들이나 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 김●●가 이 사건 토지를 8년 이상 자경하였음을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, without further review, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.