District Court-2014-Gu Group-5178 (No. 13, 2015)

Farmland is not farmland because it was used at the time of transfer as a biochemical store, not farmland.

(As with the judgment of the first instance court), the part where a vinyl house of the key land is located is used for cultivating flowers, etc. at the time of transfer for the purpose of selling or selling flowers, etc. rather than for cultivating flowers, and it does not constitute farmland at the time of transfer.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

2015Nu42697 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

EO

O Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan5178 Decided April 13, 2015

2016.01.28

2016.02.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2013, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2013

113,513,430 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's judgment shall not include the following:

Therefore, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following is added to the fourth and sixth acts of the first instance court's first instance court's decision (as a whole, the whole purport of the arguments in the statement No. 6-2 of the evidence No. 6-2 of the first instance court's decision).

The Korea Land and Housing Corporation is deemed to have received compensation for each item of obstacles at the time of the Do;

According to the fact-finding results on the plaintiff's assertion, most of the above trees are not plastic houses of the plaintiff's assertion.

D. Among the land of this case, the land of this case was created by a flower around the 'OOO restaurant', and it seems to be for landscaping around the restaurant and it is difficult to view that it was cultivated for sale purposes.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the written evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 11-2 to 7:

Although the Plaintiff is deemed to have purchased agricultural materials, such as fertilizers and agricultural chemicals from 2002 to 2011, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 3-1, the Plaintiff, at the time of the transfer of the instant land, owned farmland with another person’s own land, such as OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(the remaining area after the instant land and OOOOOO-OOOOOOOOOO was divided on September 25, 2009). Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the purchase of agricultural materials alone cultivated flowerss from the instant land).

○ In Part 5 of the fifth decision of the court of first instance, the following shall be added:

(4) The term "land prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Act means the farmland that has been cultivated by himself for at least eight years (three years in cases where the farmland subject to the payment of management transfer subsidies under paragraph (3) is transferred to the Korea Rural Community Corporation or to a corporation under paragraph (2)) from the time of its acquisition to the time of its transfer, excluding any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Farmland located in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities (excluding Guns located in Metropolitan Cities) or Sis (excluding Eup/Myeon areas in a Si in the urban and rural complex form established under Article 3 (4) of the Local Autonomy Act) as of the transfer date, for which three years have passed from the date of incorporation into a residential, commercial and industrial area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act: Provided, That any of the following cases shall be excluded:

(a) Where three years have passed since the date of incorporation into the relevant area due to the implementation of a development project in a development project area (referring to a single project execution area, the project approval of which is identical) in which the landowner in the project execution area is at least one thousand, or the area of which is at least the scale prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and due to the implementation of the development project, and

(b) Where land is incorporated into a residential, commercial or industrial area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act due to the implementation of a development project in the development project area which is the State, a local government or a public institution prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and falls under extenuating circumstances prescribed by Ordinance

2. Where any land, other than farmland, is designated prior to a replotting disposition pursuant to the Urban Development Act or other Acts, farmland for which three years have passed from the date of such designation: Provided, That this shall not apply to the portion equivalent to the liquidation money for replotting that is delivered according to

(5) The farmland subject to paragraph (4) shall be based on the farmland as of the date of transfer under Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Provided, That where the purchaser has altered the form and quality of farmland, started construction, etc. in accordance with the terms and conditions of a sales contract prior to the date of transfer, it shall be based on the farmland as of the date of the sales contract, where the relevant farmland has been designated as a land to be reserved for replotting other than farmland before the date of disposition of replotting, and where it becomes impossible to cultivate by undertaking

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.