early 208west2925 ( December 03, 2008)

Whether "the predecessor" can be included in the former decedent during the period cultivated by the decedent;

Since the Civil Act means the concept corresponding to the inheritor, it is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances to regard the term "pre-heir" as included in the term "pre-heir" in the provision of this case, unless there are any special circumstances.

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

Article 69 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

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 21,284,540 for the Plaintiff on August 4, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On March 16, 1968, the non-party ○○○○○-ri ○○○○, l11 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant division”) acquired and held the non-party ○○○○ (the mother of the plaintiff) on March 16, 1968, and on March 11, 1991, as the non-party ○○ was deceased on March 21, 1991, the non-party ○○ (the father of the plaintiff) acquired the land by agreement division as a source of inheritance on April 21, 1998. The plaintiff acquired the shares of 100/311 of the land before the instant division, and the non-party ○○-party 1 acquired each share of 211/3111 of the land before the instant division.

B. On April 5, 2006, the land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into 42-1 square meters per the same Ri, 311 square meters per the same Ri (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

C. On September 28, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to the Non-Party Down, and filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income for the year 2006 following the transfer of the Plaintiff’s share among the instant land to the Defendant on November 30, 2006, and filed an application for tax reduction or exemption pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276, Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) on the ground that the instant land constitutes inherited farmland and constitutes a self-sufficient farmland for at least eight years when aggregating the cultivation period of the decedent.

D. On August 4, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 21,284,540 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on August 4, 2008, on the ground that the period of cultivation of the decedent, who is the decedent, was seven years, and the period of cultivation by the decedent could not be considered as self-sufficient farmland even if the period of cultivation by the decedent

[Ground of recognition] The non-satiscing facts, evidence 1, 2, and evidence 1 to 5 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) According to the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the cultivation period of inherited farmland shall be calculated by aggregating the cultivation period of the heir and the cultivation period of the decedent, and there is no reason to interpret only the decedent mentioned above as the predecessor immediately preceding. In addition, it is general that the gratuitous transfer of the property by inheritance takes place from the former generation to the latter generation. In this case, since the Plaintiff’s mother is the former decedent, the sum of the cultivation period of the grandchildren is also consistent with the purport of inheritance. Therefore, in calculating the cultivation period of the land in this case, not only the cultivation period of the decedent immediately preceding decedent, but also the cultivation period of the grandchildren, who is the predecessor of the former decedent, should be aggregated. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

(2) Defendant: Under the principle of strict interpretation, the decedent of the above provision should be limited to the decedent of the immediately preceding year.

(b) relevant statutes;

Article 69 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

C. Determination

(1) Article 69 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008) provides that capital gains from farmland cultivated for not less than eight years shall not be imposed. Meanwhile, Article 66 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) which applies to the transfer of the land in this case pursuant to Article 23 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006) provides that the period of farmland cultivated shall be the period acquired and cultivated by "the decedent" in calculating inherited period.

(2) The key issue of the instant case is whether to interpret the instant provision as limited to the predecessor immediately before the heir, or whether the former decedent constitutes the predecessor under the instant provision in cases where there are special circumstances, such as the mother of the predecessor, as in the instant case.

(3) In order to ensure the legal stability and predictability of taxpayers, the contents of the tax laws should be clearly defined on a daily basis, and in the same purport, the interpretation of the tax laws should be interpreted in accordance with the statutory text, barring special circumstances, by blocking the requirements for taxation, and by extensively or analogical interpretation without reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu331, Dec. 13, 198; 92Nu18603, Feb. 22, 1994).

(4) In addition, according to Articles 100, 103, and 103 of the Civil Act, it is difficult to see that the inheritance between the former and the latter is a common inheritance between the former and the latter and the latter and there is no need to exempt the income from the transfer of farmland in comparison with other forms of inheritance. Considering the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that there is no special circumstance to see that the predecessor in this case includes the former predecessor in the term of "the preceding predecessor in this case" in the same sense, and therefore, it is deemed that the former predecessor in this case is also the same as the former predecessor in this case, unless there is any special circumstance to see that there is any special circumstance to see that the former predecessor in this case includes the former predecessor in the term of "the preceding predecessor in this case" in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case is legitimate for 8 years or more without any reason, and that there is no reason to see that the land in this case is legitimate for the plaintiff in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed for lack of reason.