Early High Court Decision 2013J 0757 (Law No. 29, 2013)

It is reasonable to deem that the acquisition was made in accordance with the necessity for cultivation even if it was knowingly acquired.

It cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not acquire the farmland of this case due to the need for cultivation, even if the land of this case was actually expropriated as above, it was scheduled to be transferred to an expressway private investment project according to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’s notification.

Reduction or exemption of transfer income tax under the substitute land for farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan3430 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Appellanting that farmland and this substitute farmland have not been actually cultivated

The application of capital gains tax reduction for farmland substitute land is denied.

2) The Plaintiff acquired and held a position by acquiring the instant substitute farmland within one year after transferring the instant farmland.

Since the land has been cultivated in this case, part of the land in this case has already been transferred to a private investment project.

The transfer office for the farmland substitute land, even if the land was scheduled to be expropriated within three years after it was acquired.

The requirements for exemption from the acquisition tax must be considered to have been met.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The plaintiff's residence

The plaintiff completed the move-in report on March 7, 2002 to O-Eup O-Eup 756-1, and on June 1, 2006

The husband of the plaintiff also made a move-in report to the same place.

2) The acquisition, transfer, and expropriation of the farmland of this case and the substitute farmland of this case

A) On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the farmland of this case.

On April 6, 2011, the above land was transferred to AA on April 6, 201, and six graveyards among the farmland in this case are 191 square meters.

is set up in part.

B) On July 18, 201, the Plaintiff purchased and owned the farmland of this case through a voluntary auction.

The transfer registration has been completed.

C) In the case of farmland acquired by the Plaintiff, February 25, 2010, prior to the date of acquisition of the farmland in the substitute land in this case

Part o-O (O) An expressway project under the Public Notice of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (O-O) (O)

The land is planned to be entered, and among which O Ri 158-3 582 m22 m2 is the same as that of June 19, 2012.

Before 160 square meters, 1,002 square meters were respectively expropriated on October 14, 2013.

3) Cultivation, etc. of the farmland of this case and the substitute farmland of this case

A) On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff was engaged in drilling and bean in the farmland of this case to the head of the OO Eup on June 19, 2007.

The results of inquiries about farmland cultivation were sent to the person who cultivated the farmland.

B) According to the farmland ledger as of July 23, 2010 as of July 23, 2010, the spouse BB of the Plaintiff’s spouse O-section

OOri 408 3,699 m22,000 m2,000 OO

In the case of cultivating yeast in 1,451 square meters of 000 000 0000 0000 000 000 000 -

In addition, it is written as an OO-Eup 755 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m2,000 m2,000

is written as being cultivated.

C) A farmland member CCC on April 22, 201, the Plaintiff from December 29, 2006 to April 6, 2011

In the farmland of this case, a certificate of cultivation was prepared to the effect that the farmland of this case cultivated drilling, shoulder, and bean.

D) The representative DoDD of XX Agriculture City was harvested from the Plaintiff on January 10, 2014.

I prepared a certificate to the effect that the sale of the bean, the scrap, etc. was requested to be made.

EE is the Plaintiff from March 2, 2007 to March 2010, 2014.

Upon request, this paper has prepared a written confirmation that the fact has been brought to the Trackor.

f) The Plaintiff purchased Chuncheon seeds from FF on July 1, 201 to August 201, and subsequently purchased the instant seeds from FF.

In September 201, 201, the Chuncheon tree was planted by the time of 2013.

G) On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff’s agricultural loss report on pine trees, etc. to the OO regional construction management authority.

Prize 5,052,960 won was claimed.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 13, 15 through 34, Eul No. 1 and 3

each description and image (including any number number), witness FF testimony, change

The purpose of the whole theory

D. Determination

1) The Defendant first failed to reach or exceed 1/2 of the farmland area of the instant substitute farmland.

for the transfer of the farmland of this case, the application of the provision on the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax to substitute farmland

As the exclusion of this, I will look at this.

According to the above facts of recognition, the farmland in this case is 3,203 square meters, and a cemetery is located in the part of 191 square meters among them.

In this case, the actual farmland area of the farmland in this case shall be deemed to be 3,012 square meters, and the land in this case shall be deemed to be the farmland area of

Since the land is 1,584 square meters, the land of this case is 1/2 of the actual farmland area of this case.

It is reasonable to view that the farmland falls under the above category. Therefore, the transfer of substitute land for farmland on the above ground is reasonable.

It can not be excluded from the application of income tax reduction regulations.

2) Public health as to whether the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case as a necessity for cultivation

Large, the Plaintiff acquired the instant substitute farmland through a voluntary auction on July 18, 201; the fact that the instant substitute farmland was planned to be transferred to a public-private partnership project on March 4, 2010; among them, the fact that it was expropriated on June 15, 2012; and the fact that the instant substitute farmland was expropriated on October 14, 201 in the amount of 1,002 square meters prior to 160 square meters prior to 200 square meters on June 15, 2012.

Meanwhile, the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012)

(B) According to Article 4, the land, etc. for public works within three years after the acquisition of new farmland.

be admitted by means of consultation and expropriation under the Act on the Acquisition of Land and the Compensation Therefor and in accordance with other Acts;

(1) In the case of this section, the person shall be deemed to have cultivated while residing in the location of the farmland for at least three years.

F. The land in this case was planned to be integrated into a public-private partnership project on an expressway.

The actual expropriation date of the substitute farmland of this case for 60 months from the commencement date of the project.

for the purposes of this section, and for the purposes of this section, it is difficult to accurately predict the facts to be included in the

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff did not mention as the grounds for exclusion.

Considering that growing trees, etc. were planted to the land and actually cultivated, etc., the substitute farmland of this case

A. It is scheduled to be transferred to an expressway private investment project by public notice of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs;

Even if the substitute farmland was actually expropriated as above, the Plaintiff’s farmland of the substitute farmland of this case

It cannot be readily concluded that it is not obtained through the need for writing. Accordingly, this reason cannot be determined as follows.

For this reason, it is difficult to exclude the application of capital gains tax reduction regulations on farmland substitute land.

3) Whether the farmland of this case and the substitute farmland of this case are actually cultivated

The plaintiff's agent, as prescribed by Presidential Decree in Article 70 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

that is a resident, there is no dispute between the parties to the agreement, and each of the evidence mentioned above.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s transfer from the end of December 2006 to the beginning of April 2011.

In the farmland, bean, shoulder, quash, etc. were cultivated, and the plaintiff around September 201 cultivated the Chuncheon trees of this case.

The plaintiff can be presumed to have cultivated farmland by not later than 2013 after planting it to farmland.

A. Residence and direct cultivation have been conducted in the farmland of this case for not less than three years, and the farmland of this case has been residing in the land of this case.

As seen earlier, it is deemed that the substitute farmland of this case was expropriated while cultivating directly with the State.

section 3.

Therefore, the farmland of this case is subject to reduction of capital gains tax under Article 70 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

As such, the first defendant's disposition of this case on a different premise shall be deemed to be a prize.

law.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable and acceptable.

We decide to do so as per Disposition.

AAA

The director of the tax office

1. The disposition of imposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 11, 2012 on the capital gains tax of 2011 shall be revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the farmland of 3,203 square meters prior to OOO on December 29, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”). On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the said land to AA, made a preliminary return on April 27, 201 by filing an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for the farmland substitute land pursuant to Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. (B) The Plaintiff, on July 18, 2011, purchased the farmland of 158-3 582 square meters prior to the acquisition of the farmland of 160 m20 m2,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant substitute farmland of 20 m3,000 m2,000 m2,000,000 m2,000,000 m2,012.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) At the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant denied the application of reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland for farmland on the ground that the substitute farmland in this case does not change more than 1/2 of the farmland area. However, it is reasonable to view that at the time of the instant adjudication, it is anticipated that the Plaintiff had already been limited to the use of the substitute farmland in this case, such as farming, etc. before its acquisition, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the substitute farmland in this case due to the necessity for cultivation. In the instant lawsuit