Early High Court Decision 2017J 3581 ( November 28, 2017)

The argument that the farmland of this case was self-refised for 8 years is not proved.

The plaintiff's assertion is entirely inappropriate because it is not reasonable to view that the plaintiff cultivated or cultivated with one-half or more own labor force of the plaintiff.

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax, etc. by Suwon District Court 2018Gudan664

GaO

O Head of tax office

2018.24

2018.09.07

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 616,57,566 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on July 1, 2016 exceeds KRW 206,59,318, among the imposition disposition of capital gains tax of KRW 616,57,56 (including additional tax) for the year 2015, and the imposition disposition of KRW 38,297,820 for additional tax returns on capital gains tax of KRW 2015 against the Plaintiff on July 19, 2017, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On August 10, 200, the Plaintiff purchased e-dong 44-8 response 5,600 square meters (hereinafter “pre-divisioned land”) from qq on August 10, 2001, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under one’s name on August 21, 2001. The pre-divisioned land was divided into e-dong 44-8 response 3,296 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 44-15 response 2,304 square meters as of January 9, 206.

The Plaintiff sold the instant land at KRW 1.9 billion to rr andt on June 22, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of rr andt on August 31, 2015, and subsequently, on October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax for the year 2015 as follows.

On July 1, 2016, the defendant added KRW 409,978,256 to the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case, and excluded the special long-term holding deduction and the reduction and exemption of self-farmland of 8 years. The defendant corrected the amount of capital gains tax of 2015 to KRW 616,57,566 (including additional tax) as follows, and notified the plaintiff of the difference of KRW 409,978,256.

Applicant filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal by dissatisfied with the Disposition No. 1 of this case, but the Plaintiff received a request for a trial on April 25, 2017 and received a decision to dismiss the request for a trial on November 28, 2017.

(v) On the other hand, on July 19, 2017, the Defendant issued an additional notice of the amount of the penalty tax to the Plaintiff on the ground that it would correct the additional tax amount of KRW 38,297,820 omitted at the time of the instant first disposition.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 18-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the first and second dispositions of this case are legitimate

(1) Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1358, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) excludes "land for non-business under Article 104-3" from the subject of special deduction for long-term possession, and Article 104-3 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168-6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26982, Feb. 17, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulate "self-owned farmland" as one of the three-year period during which the owner owns the relevant land [referring to the period exceeding two-year period from among the five-year period immediately preceding the date of transfer, the period exceeding one-year period from among the three-year period immediately preceding the date of transfer, the period corresponding to 2/100 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act shall be the period corresponding to 3/100 of the farmland for which he does not own or own.

Meanwhile, according to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same) and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26959, Feb. 5, 2016); “Direct farming” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing them with his/her own labor by at least half of farming work.

D. The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition Nos. 1 and 2 of this case must be revoked as illegal since he had directly cultivated x from June 201, 201, when he acquired the instant land, until x rent out to x. Accordingly, he met the requirements for special deduction for long-term holding since he met not only eight years of exemption from capital gains tax but also met the requirements for special deduction for non-business land.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code provides that "no person shall be liable to compensate for any loss or damage caused by his/her act or damage caused by his/her act."

○ The Plaintiff, which was written under the name of yyth on April 23, 2016, entered the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-1), the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-2), the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-3), the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-3), the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-4), the confirmation of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-4), the document prepared under the name of cc on April 22, 2016 in the name of oo on April 23, 2016, entered in the name of u on April 22, 2016, and entered in the name of her husband on April 23, 2016 in the name of 1st c, not the verification of self-finding (Evidence No. 4-5), and the documents prepared under the name of py-2, 5, and 6th c, 2016 or more of the above documents of self-defense.

According to the Plaintiff’s farmland ledger (No. 8, July 19, 2004), it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had been working for 10 m2, 205 m2 and 10 m3 m2 from 1977 m2 to 10 m25 m2, and the Plaintiff had been working for 10 m25 m25 m2 from 1977 m2 to 25 m25 m25 m3 m26 m2, including the land in this case as of October 26, 2015. However, according to the resident registration abstract (No. 17 m2, 1977 m25 m2, m25 m2, m25 m2, m25 m2, m3 m2, m4 after the acquisition of the land in this case, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff had worked for 10 m25 m25 m2.

○ With respect to the land of this case, even if it is confirmed that an airline shooting on May 200, 200 (No. 10-1), an airline shooting on April 2002 (No. 10-2, No. 19), an airline shooting on April 2005 (No. 10-3, No. 20), an airline shooting on April 2006 (No. 21), an airline shooting on September 200, 206 (No. 10-4), an airline shooting on October 2010 (No. 22), an airline shooting on April 23, 2012 (No. 23), and an airline shooting on May 24, 2014 (No. 24), were installed on the land of this case, as well as on the land of this case.

○ Even if based on the satellite photograph (Evidence No. 14 and 15) and the next map photograph (Evidence No. 16-1, 2, and 3 of the Evidence No. 16), a vinyl is installed in part of the land of this case and crops are cultivated on the street. However, it cannot be viewed as the basis for recognizing that the Plaintiff had been using one-half or more own labor for a certain period of time as required by the pertinent laws and regulations.

In full view of the fact-finding confirmation (Evidence No. 9), consignment contract (Evidence No. 13), agricultural equipment photographs (Evidence No. 17-1 through 4) submitted by the Plaintiff as well as all kinds of evidentiary materials submitted by the Plaintiff, and the fact-finding results on the www market and witness testimony, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was using not less than 1/2 of the hhh farming work for a certain period as required by the relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier.

If the aged plaintiff, for a long time, directly used at least 1/2 of the Hh farming work with his own labor, he can specifically refer to various and productive experience and peta in the process, and even if he suffers from difficulties in proving such experience and peta, he can clearly explain to this court clearly in this court. However, even though this court demanded "a description of the content of the second date for pleading" on June 1, 2018, the plaintiff only claims for a second date for pleading, without a specific explanation of the specific event.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.