National Tax Service Review and Transfer 2009-0272 (Law No. 17, 2010)

It shall not be recognized that self-defense has been made for at least eight years.

The burden of proof for self-defense has been borne by the Plaintiff for not less than 8 years, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that it has been self-defense for not less than 8 years, which excludes the reduction

2010Gudan1681 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

O Head of tax office

July 6, 2011

August 10, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 130,208,920 on October 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff of KRW 96,651,515 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 130,208,920 on October 1, 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The same Ri 00-0 square meters prior to 00-0 square meters prior to 00-0, prior to 517 square meters prior to 000, prior to 000-0, prior to the same Ri 216 square meters, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 388 square meters in the same Ri 226 square meters, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, 00-0, prior to 00-0, 4 square meters prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00-0, prior to 00, prior to 44 square meters in the same Ri, was originally owned by Nonparty A.

B. The above deceased on February 15, 1961, the deceased non-party B, who was the child, succeeded to the land set forth in the above paragraph A, but died on June 6, 1982, and thereafter the plaintiff, the child set forth in the above paragraph AB, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the land set forth in the above paragraph A on May 14, 1983 due to inheritance by agreement and division as of February 15, 1961.

C. On September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff owned the land set forth in the above paragraph (a) above, and on September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the same 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

D. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a report on the confirmation of capital gains tax for the land listed in the above paragraph (a) on May 31, 2007, on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the land listed in the above paragraph (a) and voluntarily paid capital gains tax amounting to KRW 72,17,700,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

E. On October 1, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing and notifying additional KRW 130,208,920 to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff and the inheritee had not resided in the Si/Gun/Gu in the Si/Gun/Gu in connection with the location of the instant land; and (b) the fact that it had not been verified for not less than eight years was not verified; and (c) the provision on reduction and exemption for self-farmland was not applicable.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the land of this case is farmland of which the head EE, who is the wife of the Plaintiff’s decedent, AA (Aid Division), BB (Divisions), and BB, had resided in the location of the above land from February 14, 1939 to 1970, for not less than eight years, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff and his predecessor had resided in the Si/Gun/Gu/autonomous Gu/Si/Gun adjacent to the Si/Gun/Gu/Gu where the instant land was located for at least eight years, and whether the Plaintiff and his predecessor had cultivated crops directly or had employed other persons for at least eight years, and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff.

The evidence consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion contains a statement of the F.L. and the fact-finding certificate (Evidence A 2) of the production of Y that the above A and B had cultivated Boli, bean, ancient cities, al. from February 14, 1939 to June 9, 1971 in the land of this case, but the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that thisA and B resided in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the location of the land of this case and their own facts for not less than eight years, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not reduce or exempt capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010) is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

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.