Cho High Court Decision 201Do1058 ( November 24, 2011)

No person may be deemed to have resided in a land other than his/her domicile on the resident registration;

It cannot be deemed that a person has resided at a land location in light of the fact that he/she claimed that he/she had resided at a land location different from his/her domicile on the resident registration, but he/she operated or operated in a company at his/her domicile on the resident registration,

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Gudan5667 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

CHAPTER A

Head of Seocho Tax Office

July 20, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal of correction against the plaintiff on December 13, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 26, 1975, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred on November 13, 2007, 1977, O00 m20 m2,461 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) on the high village of Gyeonggi Kimpo-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do; and (b) scheduled and paid the transfer income amount of KRW 000 on January 31, 2008 and KRW 000.

B. On August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction to the effect that the instant land constitutes “self-farmland for at least eight years” as stipulated in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and that the Defendant would refund the full amount of the capital gains tax already paid to the Defendant. However, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the request for correction on December 13, 2010 by deeming that the instant land does not meet the requirements of re-villages and self-arables for at least eight years, which are the requirements for reduction or exemption stipulated in the said provision.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff registered in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the land of this case under the resident registration card for about five years from February 22, 1983 to July 2, 1988, but the registration in Gangseo-gu Seoul Odong 000 from June 1973 to February 21, 1983 at the Gun, which is the domicile on the state resident registration card (resident registration card: September 26, 1975 - October 1, 1978) and the same 000 resident registration card (resident registration card under the resident registration card: October 26, 1978 - October 21, 198 - the resident registration card for the residential period under the resident registration card for the purpose of five years and met the requirements of this case for the cultivation and distribution of the land of this case with the parent/Gun for over 0 years other than the residential village of this case, and the plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Determination

The testimony of Gap 1, 2, and 5, and Eul 3 through 7 (including each of the above numbers), the witness testimony of the PE is not in dispute between the parties, or the testimony of Gap 3, 4, and 6, and 7, and the witness PE alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of re- village for at least eight years because the plaintiff resides in the Si/Gun/Gu where the land of this case is located between June 1973 and February 21, 1983, or in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the land of this case for at least two years and eight months, and there is no other evidence to support this paragraph. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

① According to the Plaintiff’s business registration details, from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1987, the Plaintiff was engaged in business in the above Seoul Mapo-gu OOdong 00, and from August 7, 1980 to December 31, 2003, the Seoul Jung-gu OOO is engaged in insurance agency business in the name of “FF agency” from August 7, 1980 to December 31, 2003.

③ From January 1, 1980 to February 21, 1983, the Plaintiff did not explain how the Plaintiff could operate the said ① business while residing in the high-level 00 of the Gyeonggi Kimpo-gun.

④ The Plaintiff graduated from the Seoul Mapo-gu OOdong as an elementary, middle, and high school, and the OO University located in Seoul.

⑤ According to the Plaintiff’s family register, the Plaintiff was married with his spouse lowestG on September 5, 1979, and on May 20, 1980, the Defendant was born on May 20, 1980, and the place of birth was reported to the Seoul Mapo-gu OOdong 00, which was the domicile of the resident registration card at the time.

⑥ 원고가 1973년경부터 1983년경까지 거주하였다고 주장하는 경기 김포군 고촌면 OO리 000의 지상 건축물에 관하여 1977. 3.경 및 1982. 9.경 작성된 건축물관리대장에는 그 지상 주택 180.47㎡의 소유자가 원고의 부모나 원고가 아닌 임QQ로 기재되어 있다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.