The propriety of the disposition that was not even less than 8 years in view of occupation, land use, etc.

The burden of proof of self-sufficient facts for not less than 8 years is against a taxpayer claiming exemption from capital gains tax, and the fact that the transferor has been used as farmland for not less than 8 years is not presumed until the transferor is gross.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax for self-Cultivating farmland

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 defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 23,487,90 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) the first instance court's statement on the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's "it is hard to believe, and it is not sufficient to recognize only the evidence No. 15's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Suwon District Court 2006Guhap6988 (No. 16, 2007) Main Issues

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 4, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired the answer 000-0 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in ○○○○-si, ○○○○, ○○-si, and transferred the said land to ○○○ on January 24, 2005.

B. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff applied for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax to the Defendant. However, on July 1 of the same year, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland at the time, not farmland at the time of transfer, but farmland at least eight years, and that it does not constitute farmland at the time of its own discretion.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The land in this case was transferred to the date of the transfer except when temporary closure was made on or around June 2004, as the land category, until the date of the transfer, and during that period, the disposition in this case was unlawful even though it constitutes an exemption from capital gains tax, since the land in this case constitutes a farmland by a person who cultivated her wife for not less than eight years, using hours such as work hours prior to work, retirement, and weekend while working at ** in a small school or in a temporary housing construction and sales business while working at her workplace or in a temporary housing construction and sales business, and the Plaintiff directly cultivated her wife

(b) Related statutes;

The Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005)

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

Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329 of Feb. 9, 2006)

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

Enforcement Regulations of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 305 of October 13, 2005)

Article 27 (Scope, etc. of Farmland)

C. Determination

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005; hereinafter “the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income tax accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax, which has been cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree for not less than eight years by residing in the location of the farmland. As such, the burden of proving that the transferred land resided in the location of the farmland and transferred for not less than eight years has the burden of proving that the transferred land has been exempted from the transfer income tax pursuant to the above provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002); since the transferred land has been used as farmland for not less than eight years, it is not presumed that the transferor has been replaced (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 2

Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 66 (4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the land for which the transfer income tax is reduced under Article 69 (1) of the Act shall be farmland as of the date

(4) In full view of the overall purport of oral proceedings, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 12-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6-8, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 and part of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1997, the plaintiff maintained the business on February 1, 1997 as a housing construction and sales business and reported it as a special taxpayer on July 1, 1997 as a real estate rental business, ② The plaintiff continued to work for 0000 m20 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000 m2,000 m3,000 m2,000.

In light of the circumstances as above recognition, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence No. 18-1 to 9, and witness Kim ○, which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff cultivated the land of this case for not less than eight years until the transfer date, are easily believed. Rather, since the land of this case was filled up at a height the same as that adjacent to a road around 2003 at least, its current status is difficult to be deemed as farmland actually used for cultivation. Thus, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff is legitimate, since the land of this case was not farmland directly owned by the plaintiff for not less than eight years at the time of transfer, and the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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