The early appellate court 2012 middle 3480

It is difficult to apply the reduction or exemption of farmland on a comprehensive basis of the facts, income amounts, etc. of the substitute farmland.

It is difficult to apply the provisions on reduction and exemption of farmland when comprehensively assessing the time of construction of buildings on the land, the amount of income of the claimant, etc.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

2013Gudan442. Partial cancellation of the disposition of capital gains tax

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 15, 2013

August 19, 2013

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 the capital gains tax belonging to the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on January 12, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 15, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong O-dong 459-1 423 m23 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “land”) and 463 m25 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “B”) of the same 463m2 (hereinafter referred to as “O”) and transferred it on December 22, 2006.

B. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant imposed an OOO on the Plaintiff, and ② an OOOO on the transfer income of land in 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a tax judgment with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but on November 2012.

28. A decision of dismissal was rendered.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

" 원고는 ①， ② 토지의 양도 후 2007. 2. 14. OO시 OO구 OO동 195-3 답 502㎡'를 취득하였고， 위 토지는 2010. 3. 10. 같은 동 195-3 대 154㎡， 195-4 답 330㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)， 195-5 도로 18㎡로 분할 및 지목변경되었는바， 이 사건 토지는 ② 토지의 대토에 해당하므로 이 사건 처분 중 ② 토지의 양도에 관하여 양도소득세를 부과한 부분은 위법하다.",나. 관련 법령

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010), Article 67(1), 67(2), and 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037 of Feb. 19, 2010) provide that a person who directly cultivated while residing in the former location of farmland for not less than three years shall have resided in a new location of farmland for not less than three years within one year from the date of transfer, and that a person who has resided in a new location of farmland for not less than 1/2 of the area of the farmland to be newly acquired, or 1/3 or more of the value of the transferred farmland is entitled to tax reduction or exemption equivalent to 10/100 of the transfer income tax on the transfer income accruing from substitute land, and that a person who directly claims for tax reduction or exemption by 10/100 or more of the transfer income tax on the farmland shall not be subject to tax reduction or exemption by 29.

(2) We examine whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land.

There are descriptions or images of Gap evidence 5 to 8 and 11 to 13 as evidence as shown in the plaintiff's argument.

However, the following circumstances are considered comprehensively considering the statements in Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, and 9, and Eul evidence No. 2 through 8, and (i) the plaintiff started construction with a building permit on the ground of 195-3 square meters above 195-3 square meters above the above land divided on March 15, 2010, and the land was approved for use on the building constructed on the 195-3 square meters above 154 square meters above the above land divided from the above land. (ii) The plaintiff operated CCC adjacent to the above site, and the above company used OOO for 207, OO for 200, OOO for 209, OOO for 195-3, O for 502 square meters before division, and there are no objective evidence that the plaintiff submitted to O or 200 or more than OO for the same period.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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