Early High Court Decision 2008J 2472 (Law No. 9, 2008)

Whether a person has been self-employed for at least eight years;

It is not sufficient to recognize that farmland has been self-fluence in view of the fact that the police officer worked as a police officer for the period of claiming self-fluence, that farmland is registered as self-fluence farmland in the farmland ledger, and that the farmland has been sold as weekend farmland.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 499,676,860 as of December 26, 2007 to the Plaintiff by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 11, 1998, the Plaintiff acquired a 4,040 square meters of DDdong 537-3 Do-dong 537-3 Do-dong on April 10, 2007, and transferred it on April 10, 2007. On June 30, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax of KRW 1,460,000, acquisition value of KRW 128,310,000, transfer income amount of KRW 1,123,426,00, and paid the said farmland to the effect that the said farmland falls under one’s own farmland for at least eight years, and reported and paid KRW 262,653,426 as capital gains tax.

B. On April 7, 2008, the Defendant did not accept an application for reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any objective data to confirm that the Plaintiff was a police officer, and that the farming confession period is confirmed to be one year and six months, and at the same time, notified the Plaintiff that the capital gains tax was corrected as KRW 49,676,860 on April 7, 2008 by deeming the said farmland as land for non-business use (hereinafter the instant disposition

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Eul evidence 1

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff had resided in a street within 4 km from the said farmland for the pertinent period during which he/she owned the farmland of this case, Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall apply to cases where the said farmland was re-established for at least eight years and re-developed, and thus, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted.

Therefore, this case's disposition is unlawful with land for non-business use without accepting an application for reduction of capital gains tax.

3. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

As the issue of this case, we examine whether the Plaintiff re-establisheds or re-satisfed the farmland of this case.

In order to get the capital gains tax reduction or exemption for self-Cultivating farmland under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the person who asserts the reduction or exemption will be the reason for the reduction or exemption

On the other hand, the transfer income tax rate should be increased in case of transfer of non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act. Whether land falls under the non-business land falls under the requirements for taxation. However, since the income tax law widely prescribes the non-business land, the corresponding requirements for non-business land function as the grounds for reduction and exemption. In the case of farmland, the tax payer can easily prove this as the matters belonging to the taxpayer's territory, but it is difficult for the tax office to prove the fact, while it is difficult for the taxpayer to prove that the taxpayer is "non-business land" and the tax office adopts the method of return and payment of the transfer income tax, considering the fact that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to select the taxation requirements and submit the supporting documents, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's assertion of the non-business land under the Income Tax Act should prove it.

The plaintiff was working as a police officer during the period of self-defense, and even after around November 1998, when the plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case from Gangnam, his father, he worked for agriculture. The farmland of this case is registered as a self-arable farmland in the farmland ledger of the GangwonCC. Since November 2005 to August 2006, the farmland of this case was re-drawing from November 2005 to August 2006. After that, the above farmland was sold out as a weekend farm, and the plaintiff was notified by the Ddong Office as a person subject to direct payment for rice income, etc. in 2006, and it was difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was the self-employed farmland of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not accept the application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and there is no illegality in the disposition of this case by regarding the farmland as non-business land

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