Early High Court Decision 2014J 804 (Law No. 15, 2014)

It shall not be deemed that a photographic photo is confirmed to be a site, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been used.

A reduction or exemption of self-defense shall not be recognized because it appears to be a site for photographic photography, and it is considered as farmland.

2014Gudan31227 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

October 23, 2015

November 27, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 99,683,080 for the Plaintiff on November 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 10, 204, the Plaintiff acquired 1,128 square meters prior to ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, and transferred the instant land to KRW 58,00,000 on November 1, 201, and reported to reduce capital gains tax of KRW 83,627,000 on January 3, 201 with farmland substitute land. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and 690 square meters on September 27, 2012.

B. As to this, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing and notifying the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 99,683,080 (including additional tax) for the year 201, on November 1, 2013 on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is a self-employed farmer who cultivated or cultivated with one half or more of his own labor, considering that the Plaintiff’s land transfer date cannot be deemed farmland as a site as at the time of the Plaintiff’s land transfer date, and that the Plaintiff frequently traded real estate with the trade name, which is large real estate brokerage from November 1, 196, while engaging in real estate brokerage. From December 2008, the Plaintiff is the representative of the temple and is taking over the temple.

C. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 15, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff resided in a place within 20 km of the land of this case and the land of this case

Since the plaintiff used the bean, etc. as farmland in fact, it constitutes reduction of capital gains tax on farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Determination

Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted on income accruing from the substitute land which a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the seat of farmland cultivated in such a manner as prescribed by Presidential Decree due to the necessity for cultivation. As such, the taxpayer has the burden of proof with regard to the fact that the land falls under self-sufficient farmland as a requirement for tax reduction or exemption.It is difficult to find that the entries of evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including paper numbers) and evidence No. 14 constitute farmland at the time of the transfer date, or that the Plaintiff has replaced the land for more than three years. Rather, according to the photograph taken around April 2010 and Nov. 1, 2011, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land in this case fell under the farmland site at the time of the transfer date cannot be said to have been cultivated or used as farmland at the time of harvest, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land in this case was again harvested.

3. Conclusion

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