Suwon District Court 2010Guhap8202 ( December 09, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Du3403 ( October 10, 2010)

Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for self-farmland for 8 years;

(As in the judgment of the first instance court), the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land by moving to the United States, and even if the Plaintiff cultivated the land as farmland, there is no objective proof that the Plaintiff cultivated the land at the time of transfer in light of the registration period of direct payments compensating for rice income, etc., development service and site creation work period.

2011Nu1834 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

United Kingdom A

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap8202 Decided December 9, 2010

September 21, 2011

October 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2009, regarding the disposition of refusal to grant transfer income tax exemption for the year 2008 shall be revoked, and the part shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and therefore, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the argument in the appellate trial

A. The plaintiff asserts in the appellate court that since each of the instant lands was used as farmland around June 10, 2008, which was at the time of transfer, the transfer income tax should be reduced or exempted in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

However, in light of the various circumstances as well as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, even if all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff was collected, it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the instant lands was cultivated as farmland at the time of transfer, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the capital gains tax should be exempted at least in view of the fact that, as a result of an on-site investigation conducted by the Defendant around March 2009, the area preserved as farmland at the time of the investigation is equal to 600 square meters.

However, in full view of the statements Nos. 5 and 8 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the CC by the witness of the trial party, the part that the Defendant’s public official held that the farmland is preserved as at the time of the investigation is deemed to refer to the land No. 664, which had already been recognized as farmland by the Defendant as at the time of the investigation, and the transfer income tax was reduced or exempted. As such, the part of the land of this case, other than the land No. 1, is deemed to be a clerical error of “64,” and there is no evidence to deem otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is difficult.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.