Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Group-31446 (2016.02.03)

Review 2014-0210 ( October 16, 2015)

Transfer after the lapse of 3 years from the date of incorporation into a residential area and is not subject to reduction or exemption for 8 years.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance) The plaintiff transferred the key land after the lapse of three years from the date of incorporation into a residential area, and the project operator delayed compensation due to unavoidable reasons. Therefore, it is legitimate to deny the application for reduction or exemption for the period of eight years.

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

Seoul High Court 2016Nu37340 Revocation of Disposition imposing capital gains tax

Kim 00

00. Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gudan31446 Decided February 3, 2016

June 21, 2016

July 12, 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 court shall be revoked. In the first instance court, the Defendant around November 17, 2014, revoked the imposition of KRW 88,532,30,00 for the transfer income tax of KRW 88,532,30 for the Plaintiff on November 17, 2012. In the first instance, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 59,060,676 for the transfer income tax of KRW 88,532,30 for the Plaintiff on November 17, 2014 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is as follows: "The cultivation period under Article 66 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means the period from the time of acquisition of farmland to the time of transfer regardless of the date of incorporation into a residential area, etc., and the plaintiff continued to cultivate the land of this case to December 27, 2012 before the time of transfer of the land of this case, which was incorporated into a residential area, 8 years after December 17, 2007." The plaintiff added "the land of this case, which is stipulated in the proviso of Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act" to "the first 5th 4th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 4th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 2th 5th 194th 2th 10th 2th 2th 3th 194th 3th 4th 7.".

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

.