(영문) 대전고등법원 2015. 06. 11. 선고 2015누10269 판결

According to the above-mentioned photographic image, the soil stack is stored in the farmland, the truck is parked, and when the miscellaneous is infinite, it shall be deemed that the miscellaneous has been done for not less than 8 years.

Related statutes

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

Cases

2015Nu10269 Revocation of disposition to impose capital gains tax

2014Gu 100599 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Plaintiff and appellant

GaO

SOO in Chungcheongnam-nam Hong-gun

Law Firm OO

Defendant, Appellant

O Head of tax office

Litigation Performers MO

Judgment of the first instance court

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Gudan100599 Decided January 16, 2015

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 7, 2015

November 28, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

June 11, 2015

January 16, 2015

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) accrued to the plaintiff on January 11, 2014 by the defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked on January 11, 2014.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) of KRW 56,171,470 against the plaintiff on January 11, 2014, which reverts to the plaintiff in 2013.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it can be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 8, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired an OOO 326-9 1,130 square meters (hereinafter “transfer land”) and transferred it to OO on February 19, 2013.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff applied the provision on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-farmland to the Defendant.

C. On January 11, 2014, the Defendant denied reduction and exemption and deemed transferred land as land for non-business use, and imposed a disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 56,171,470 on the Plaintiff for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, Eul 2-1, Eul 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff cultivated the transferred land as farmland for not less than eight years. The instant disposition denying the reduction or exemption by deeming the transferred land as sale of non-business land is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the statement and image of Eul evidence No. 7, it is reasonable to view that the transferred land is flatized around June 19, 201, and the soil is stored at the place around September 201, and the truck is parked inside around October 201, and the gravel is stored on the parts adjacent to the road, and the truck and construction machinery is parked on around October 2013. In light of this, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff owned the transferred land for eight years and eight months from June 2010 to February 19, 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge Gap's evidence of evidence No. 10, No. 131, No. 181, No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1,38 of the witness evidence No. 1, and No. 1, No. 1 of the witness No. 1, 2013.

3. Conclusion

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

Judge Lee Gyeong-hoon