Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Group-4485 (27 April 2016)

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) It shall not be deemed that the farmland was not farmland at the time of the transfer date, and there is no evidence that the actual self-defense was made.

(The same as the judgment of the court of first instance) It is not farmland as at the time of the transfer date, and there is no basis to regard that the person actually engaged in self-defense even if the person falls under the farmland of a novel.

2016Nu46399 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

friendly ○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gudan4485 Decided April 27, 2016

oly 26, 2016

November 16, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision of KRW 131,502,640 against the plaintiff on January 15, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

�� 4면 마지막행의 "있다" 다음에 "(대법원 1991. 4. 23. 선고 90누6293 판결 등 참조)"를 추가한다.

○ The 8th 10th 10th 7th 10 is "leased".

○ 9, 15 to 10,000,000 are as follows.

Articles 95(1) and 104-3(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) define farmland which is not re-established or self-developed as land for a period prescribed by Presidential Decree during the period for which the owner owns the land, and excludes special long-term holding deduction. According to Articles 168-6 and 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23887, Jun. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), farmland excluded from non-business land refers to farmland for which the owner has registered as a resident of a Si/Gun/Gu, or an area within 30 km in a straight line from the farmland, or a person who actually resides in such area within the boundary of 30 km in a straight line from the farmland, and if the ownership period of the land exceeds 5 years immediately preceding the transfer period, the period exceeding 10 years prior to the date.

Generally, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation. The tax authority bears the burden of proving the existence of a person who is the requirement of land for non-business with heavy capital gains tax or the period during which the non-business was not re-established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010).

As seen earlier, the planting of dry field crops, such as bean and shoulder, in part of the pertinent land, was around September 201 or around September 201, and thus, even if the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said crops, the cultivation period is not more than two years. Therefore, as to the land at issue of this case, the Plaintiff falls under the land for non-business as it did not meet the requirements for direct cultivation for not less than three years from the five years immediately before the transfer date. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that it falls under the land for non-business use is lawful. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

From 11 to 14, "Additional Parts of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be added to the corresponding parts of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.