Early High Court Decision 2009J2671 (Law No. 17, 2010)

Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on substitute land for farmland

Although it is alleged that us had cultivated us directly, it is necessary to provide more direct and detailed evidence for import, etc., but it is not required to submit other evidence.

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

쇠鹬 쇠지鹬 3000 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 48,416,879 against the Plaintiff on April 6, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares among 55-1 m2, 65-1 m2, 331 m2, and 181 m2,559 m2, such as 55-3 m2, 331 m2, and 181 m2,59 m2,000 (hereinafter referred to as '1 m2, '2 ', '3' in the order', 'the land in this case', but on December 20, 206, transferred the above shares to D m2.

B. In filing a preliminary return on February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of KRW 100,000 on the premise that the transfer of the instant land is the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax by farmland substitute land.

C. On April 1, 2009, the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land, excluded the provision on capital gains tax reduction by farmland substitute land, and additionally imposed capital gains tax of KRW 120,130,000.

D. On June 17, 2010 upon the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for adjudication on the transfer of KRW 2 and 3 land 1/2 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not cultivate the land directly on the ground that the Plaintiff had cultivated the land in the first land for at least three years and seven months, and that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected by replacing the transfer of 1/2 shares in the first land.

E. Around that time, the Defendant refunded KRW 71,713,121 to the Plaintiff according to the purport of the decision of the said Tax Tribunal (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The remainder of KRW 48,416,879 remaining after reduction due to refund from the initially imposed disposition of capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2.3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including paper numbers)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land Nos. 2 and 3, the transfer of 1/2 shares out of the land No. 2 and 3 constitutes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute land for farmland under Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

In full view of the provisions of Article 70(1) of the Act and Article 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, in order to reduce capital gains tax, it should be the case where the Plaintiff directly cultivated the relevant farmland.

First, according to the fact that the plaintiff cultivated land Nos. 9, 10, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiff cultivated land Nos. 2, 3, 8-1, 5, and 9-2, and 5 of evidence Nos. 7-2, 3, 8-2, and 9-5, respectively, are merely merely a mere statement, and it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff prepared and submitted a confirmation document that new FF, KimGGG has cultivated land Nos. 2, 3 and 2, and 9-2, and 5 of evidence Nos. 7-2, 7-3 as a whole.

In addition, according to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including various numbers), the plaintiff leased 2 partitionss from HaH from October 17, 2002 to February 19, 2006, from HaH to 185-1 located in KaA Si BCC Dong, and 2, under the farmland ledger, the plaintiff is stated as the direct cultivation of the third land. ③ From July 20, 2005 to 20 April 20, 2006, the plaintiff purchased agricultural chemicals equivalent to KRW 169,000 in total, and ④ from January 14, 1998 to 6:4, the tax Tribunal agreed to distribute the revenue earned from the newF and the head farmer's farm, ⑤ it is recognized that the plaintiff directly cultivated the third party's land based on the above data, but it is also found that the plaintiff was also found that the plaintiff directly cultivated the third party's land in addition to the above documents.

In order to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated the land Nos. 2 and 3 directly, even though the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land Nos. 2 and 3, it is necessary to provide more direct and detailed evidence with an explanation that he/she reasonably obtained in the process of preparing and submitting the above confirmation document, etc., as well as with an explanation that he/she obtained in advance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

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