Whether it is subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land because it has been re-established for more than 3 years.

In full view of the fact that the domicile of the spouse and his/her children is not the area adjacent to farmland, there is employment income, and that the cultivator in the farmland ledger and the recipient of the purchase price for rice farming sector is his/her father, it shall be deemed that the farmland is not cultivated directly.

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

Article 67 (Requirements, etc. for Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on July 11, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 9, 199, the Plaintiff acquired 549 square meters prior to ○○○-3, Dong-dong, Incheon, and 2026 square meters prior to ○○○-8, the same ○○-8, and on December 26, 2006, the Plaintiff received land compensation after consultation with the Korea Land Corporation and the Incheon Metropolitan City Urban Development Corporation. On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the tax amount to be paid for capital gains on the said three lots of land as KRW 82,659,90, and voluntarily paid KRW 41,329,490 among the tax amount to be paid on February 5, 2007.

B. On March 13, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that on March 13, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○○○○○○,309 square meters (hereinafter “the instant substitute land”) from a large land of the instant land, and on April 2, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that on April 2, 2007, the instant land was subject to abatement or exemption under Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, alleging that the instant land was subject to abatement or exemption of capital gains tax, and

C. On July 11, 2007, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for correction on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have resided in the location of the instant land for not less than three years and did not constitute reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute land.

D. On October 1, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the Director of the National Tax Tribunal for the National Tax Tribunal’s request for a trial, but upon receipt of a decision of dismissal on December 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 18, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3 through 10 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant directly cultivated the instant land for not less than three years while residing in the location of the instant land, it is unlawful that the Defendant issued the instant disposition even though it meets the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax due to farmland substitute.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 70 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

Article 67 (Requirements, etc. for Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Substitute Land for Farmland)

C. Determination

1) Non-taxation on capital gains tax due to substitute farmland under Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall have resided in the previous farmland for not less than three years and directly cultivated (any resident is constantly engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on his own farmland, or cultivating or cultivating 1/2 or more of farming works with his own labor). ② The previous land shall be the land subject to agricultural income tax; ② the new land shall be the farmland; ③ the new land shall be acquired within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland (two years in cases of purchase by consultation or expropriation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor and expropriation under other Acts and subordinate statutes); ④ The area of the newly acquired farmland shall be at least half of the area of the transferred farmland, or shall be at least one third of the value of the transferred farmland; ⑤ The self-employed farmer shall be entitled to acquire at the location of the new farmland for three years after its acquisition.

2) We examine whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than three years.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the fact of farmland is responsible for proving it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893, Jul. 13, 199); (b) the Plaintiff’s 12, 17, 18, and 19 each statement of evidence; (c) the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-5, supra; (d) the Plaintiff’s 36.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that capital gains tax reduction regulations should apply to the land of this case due to farmland substitute land is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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