early 2010 Heavy2841 ( October 14, 2011)

The provisions on self-Cultivating farmland reduction and exemption cannot be applied because it does not fall under farmland as of the transfer date.

Part of land is converted into a site for the purpose of using it as a parking lot, and the remainder is left unattended of stone, sand, etc. or landscape trees are planted, and there seems to be no part cultivated as a aerially farmland, and therefore, the self-arable farmland reduction and exemption provisions are not applicable because it does not fall under farmland as of the transfer date.

2011Guhap5606 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Song XX

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

September 7, 2011

October 19, 2011

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 14,178,870 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010 (the date the written complaint was issued on July 10, 201) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) On April 29, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) owing to the death of the Busan metropolitan area on the part of the Busan metropolitan area on April 29, 1998, succeeded to the size of 1,369 square meters in common with BB, Song-gu, Seoul metropolitan area on the part of the Cheongdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul metropolitan area prior to the division owned by the Song metropolitan area on the part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.” in entirety with the Plaintiff and the co-inheritors). The inheritance shares are 1/7 shares, respectively.

(2) On October 17, 2002, the land prior to the division was divided into P 00-0 m2 (the land category was changed to a warehouse site on January 4, 2003) and 1,174 m2 (hereinafter “00-0 m2”) of the same 00-0 m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”).

(3) On August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. completed the registration of ownership transfer by shares due to inheritance on the instant land.

(4) On September 18, 2008, the Plaintiff et al. transferred to WhiteH each share on the above 00-0 land and the instant land (the total transfer value of KRW 915,00,000).

B. (1) The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax amounting to KRW 12,887,546 with respect to the instant land by filing a report on capital gains tax reverting to the Defendant in 2008, in accordance with the provisions on reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland under the Restriction

(2) The Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption on the ground that the instant land does not fall under one of its own farmland for not less than eight years, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 14,178,870 as transfer income tax for the instant land computed by applying the general tax rate on July 8, 2010 after the notice of advance taxation on April 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on June 16, 2010, but the Defendant rendered a non-adopted decision on June 16, 2010, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 25, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on March 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 12, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case, which was taken by a co-inheritors of the network Song-AD, for the co-inheritors, operated a simple restaurant on the land XX 00-0-0, after division with her husband’s maximum Y, was unlawful, without recognizing the fact of self-defense, even though he cultivated the cafeteria to the restaurant on May 29, 2007, when he discontinued the above cafeteria. After that, the co-inheritors, EE, and Song FF, together with the co-inheritors, cultivated the horse-ma and surf on the above land until the transfer of the land.

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, the plaintiff et al. acquired the land of this case on April 29, 198 due to the death of Song, and transferred it to YH after ten years from the date of transfer. The proviso of Article 66 (11) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006) which provides for the restriction on deeming the period of cultivation of the decedent as the period of cultivation of the heir under Article 23 of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006) does not apply, and Article 66 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the amended Act applies. Thus, the cultivation period of Song-A by the decedent shall be deemed as the period of cultivation of the plaintiff et al. regardless of the date of inheritance and transfer. However, according to Paragraph 5, the farmland subject to the above provision is the "farmland as of the date of the transfer of land of this case."

In light of the following circumstances, the land of this case at the time of the on-site inspection by Defendant’s employees on March 11, 2010 is connected with the K Kju station, rest area, and restaurant building at the time of the on-site inspection by Defendant’s employees on March 11, 2010, at the time of the on-site inspection by including the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 4, 2, 3, 3, and 4-1, 2 of the evidence Nos. 2, and 4-1, 6 of the above evidence No. 2, and the land of this case was converted into a site for the purpose of AA as a parking lot, and the rest of the rest of the area is neglected or landscaped, and the land of this case was installed at the time of the on-site inspection by Defendant’s employees on the part of this case, and the land of this case was purchased from 0, 200 to the present time of the purchase of the land of this case.

3. Conclusion

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