Early High Court Decision 201J 5143 (O24, 2012)

It is not enough to recognize the fact that the family or the family or the family or the family or the family or the family or the family.

According to the resident registration record, it is difficult to see that the period of residing in a location of farmland until the time of transfer after acquisition of farmland has not been eight years and there is no ground to recognize that the child living in a location other than the resident registration was living in a location of the farmland, and the person working in a bank located located away from the location of the farmland during the period of farmland holding, etc. for

2012Guhap4204 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

KimA

Head of the tax office

October 12, 2012

November 16, 2012

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 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 18, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 24, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 1,048 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) prior to 000 OO of Postal Eup, Masung-si, and transferred the farmland in this case to Nonparty CC.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Act on Special Cases of Taxation (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) on the ground that he/she resided in the location of the farmland of this case for at least eight years and cultivated it directly.

C. However, the Defendant denied the exemption and reduction of the relevant capital gains tax on August 18, 201 on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have re-established and re-developed for at least eight years in the instant farmland as a result of the on-site verification investigation (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal through a pre-assessment review, but on February 23, 2012, the said request was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The purpose of the parties, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring the farmland in this case on October 10, 1972, the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said farmland for not less than eight years, residing in the location of the farmland in which the farmland was transferred to ChoCC, a purchaser of the said farmland on October 8, 2009. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption of the relevant capital gains tax was unlawful because the Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s re-village and self-defense.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "if a person who resides in the seat of farmland has cultivated the farmland for at least eight years, the amount of tax equivalent to 10/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of the land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land subject to agricultural income tax." In addition, according to Article 66(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21565, Jun. 26, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), the "resident who resides in the seat of the farmland" means the area of Si/Gun/Gu (referring to an autonomous Gu; hereinafter the same shall apply) where the farmland is located and the area of Si/Gun/Gu, and the area that is presumed to have been cultivated within 20 kilometers in straight line from the farmland at issue, referring to the period of 20 years before the transfer or acquisition of the farmland and 3 years after the transfer of the farmland.

(2) Based on the above legal principle, it is difficult to believe that the witness Kim-hee’s testimony that the Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant farmland for not less than eight years and directly cultivated the said farmland is insufficient to recognize the facts re-dominated by the Plaintiff in light of the following circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, by considering the whole purport of the pleading in the entries (including the paper numbers) of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 3, and Gap evidence 2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 6 through 10 (including the paper numbers).

① The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the farmland of this case, on October 11, 1972, on the ground of the sale and purchase as of October 10, 1972 (Evidence A 3). The Plaintiff asserted that all of the purchase price of the farmland of this case was paid before October 10, 1972, which is the date on which the above ground for registration was due, and that the said farmland acquired the said farmland before October 10, 1972, but it is difficult to deem that the purchase price of the farmland of this case was paid before October 10, 1972, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the acquisition date of the farmland of this case should be deemed as the date on which the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was completed pursuant to Article 98 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 162(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act.

② After the acquisition of the farmland of this case, the Plaintiff resided in Gangdong-gu and Dongjak-gu, Seoul, not less than about 50 kilometers away from the location of the farmland of this case, and moved to 00 Ori-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (Ori-ri-ri-ri), located near the farmland of this case only on March 16, 1983. The Plaintiff resided in the above area for about four years from March 31, 1987, but moved to Ori-dong-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (Ori-ri-ri) for about 18 years from September 28, 2005 to Ori-ri-ri-si (Ori-si), the location of the farmland of this case, for about 18 years from 1983 to 200 Ori-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (Ori-ri-si) of this case.

③ From August 10, 2004 to September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff cultivated the instant farmland while residing in 000 OOOOOOOO apartment 00 000 o00 oOOOOOO apartment o00 o00 o00 o0 o00 f where the said farmland was located, and the said domicile is located within the location of the instant farmland, and the said period should also be included in the Plaintiff’s re- village and self-development period. However, the Plaintiff’s resident registration abstract (Evidence A) stated that the Plaintiff was residing within 00 oOdong in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government during the said period, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff directly paid the rent, management fee, etc. of the said apartment was insufficient to fully submit objective materials to support it.

④ Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said farmland from June 24, 2009 to October 8, 2009 with the understanding of the above OO that transferred the instant farmland to Nonparty CC, the Plaintiff asserts that the said period should also be included in the Plaintiff’s re-development and self-development period. However, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that “the period of re-development for which the capital gains tax on self-arable farmland is reduced or exempted until the time of transfer” shall be eight years from the time of acquisition until the time of transfer, and the farming period after the date of transfer shall not be included in the period of 8 years.

⑤ The farmland ledger under the Plaintiff’s name was first drafted on January 10, 2006. Furthermore, from around 1975 to around 2004, the Plaintiff served for most of the periods at the head office of the pertinent company located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and earned income earned by the Plaintiff from 1992 to 2003 reaches at least annual average of 00 won. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, while working for the said bank, engaging in the cultivation and cultivation of crops for eight (8) years or at least a half of farming work with his own labor.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the relevant transfer income tax on the Plaintiff is lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of transfer income tax on self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.