Whether substitute farmland has been actually cultivated or not

According to photographs taken of substitute farmland, it is recognized that the farmland was not cultivated in substitute farmland.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 133,382,450 on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007 is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 29, 199, the Plaintiff acquired and owned BB AAri 760-3, 5,988 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, BBAri 760-3, 2005, on May 19, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred 450,000,000 square meters (the previous farmland of this case is divided into AAri 760-3, 2005, hereinafter referred to as "the previous farmland of this case") of BB Eup 760-10,000,000 won, and transferred 17,000,000,000 won for non-taxation of the previous farmland of this case (hereinafter referred to as "Tan farmland of this case") since it acquired from DD *137-5,041 square meters from the Republic of Korea on February 24, 2006 for non-taxation of the transfer income tax of this case.

B. The Defendant imposed capital gains tax on the previous farmland of this case on October 1, 2007 on the ground that the Plaintiff had not started farming on the land of this case until July 2007, and imposed capital gains tax on the Plaintiff in the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 133.382.450 on the Plaintiff in 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4 (including each number), and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From 2006, the Plaintiff had resided in the seat of the substitute farmland of this case and cultivated fruit trees and vegetables, etc., so capital gains from the transfer of the previous land of this case is exempt from taxation. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 89(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 153(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19254 of Dec. 31, 2005), where a person who resided in the former location of farmland for not less than three years and cultivated farmland while acquiring another farmland within one year thereafter for not less than three years while residing in the new location of farmland, income tax on the transfer income of the previous farmland shall be exempted. The purport of the provision on non-taxation of capital gains tax on substitute land is to protect farmers through free permission and guarantee of substitution of farmland, or to limit the purchase of farmland to substitute land for the purpose of developing and promoting agriculture. Thus, it is necessary to prove that the person who resided in the former location of farmland for not less than 2 years and claimed for a new period from 20 years ago (see Article 153(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sold the previous land to ParkCC on May 19, 2005. Thus, in order to reduce the transfer income tax, the Plaintiff must prove the commencement of farming in the substitute farmland of this case on or before May 19, 2006. However, according to ① the witness DoE testimony and the evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3 (a confirmation document prepared by the residents living in the vicinity of the substitute farmland of this case) of this case were farming houses in the substitute farmland of this case on or around July 2006, the Plaintiff did not have any evidence that the Plaintiff did not sell the substitute farmland of this case on or before 600 to 60 to 70 to 60 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 111 to 20 to 5 to 20 to 5 to 6 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 20 to 3 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 5 to 2 to 5 to 5 to see that the witness 2 to 3 to 1 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 5 to be found the present farmland.

3. Conclusion

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