early 208 Heavy3746 ( December 22, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that farmland was self-refised for 8 years or more;

It is difficult to believe the plaintiff's assertion in light of the fact that the plaintiff served as the representative director of the construction company during the period of self-reliance, the real estate rental business.

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

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of 112,630,000 won belonging to the year 2006 against the plaintiffs on August 5, 2008 (the "statement in the complaint" of August 8, 2008) shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On April 6, 1998, the Plaintiffs acquired one-half of each of the instant land of 0,000 citrusium 226-2,94m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 27, 2006, the Plaintiffs transferred each of the instant shares to ○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the instant land.

B. On January 30, 2007, the Plaintiffs made a preliminary return on each tax base of capital gains tax to the effect that the transfer of the instant land to the Defendant constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by transferring “self-farmland for not less than eight years” under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On August 8, 2008, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiffs’ respective applications for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the grounds that the Plaintiffs did not have self-refised the instant land for more than eight years, and then imposed KRW 112,630,000 for capital gains tax for the year 2006 due to the transfer of each of the instant land among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' principal

The Plaintiffs were rice sheds by performing water works, such as dump, fertilizer spraying, crop spraying, miscellaneous grass and removal work, piling management, etc., on the instant land. However, in the event of a need for work of agricultural machinery, such as fumpers, fumpers, and drilling, the Plaintiffs left the instant land to the largest ○○○. Accordingly, even though the Plaintiffs’ land was cut for at least eight years, each of the dispositions of this case, which was otherwise deemed unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

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 taxpayers without any justifiable reason, which results in a result contrary to the principle of no taxation, which is the basic ideology of the tax law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). Therefore, a person who asserts farmland shall be liable to prove the fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1893, Jul. 13, 1993).

(2) As to the instant case, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s testimony was lawful from 198 to 206, based on the following facts: (a) it is hard to see that the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 15-1, 16-1, 3-2, and 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10-2 were based on the overall purport of the pleadings; (b) it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s testimony was based on the following facts: (c) from 198 to 206, the maximum number of stories in the instant land was managed between 198, 198, 200, 15-1, 16-2, and 3-2, the Plaintiff’s 1, 2, and 4-2, the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was the Plaintiff’s father of the Plaintiff’s 0-2, and the Plaintiff’s remaining real estate construction work.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, so it is judged the same as the order.