The provisions of the Enforcement Decree shall not be deemed to go against the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation on the ground that the provisions of the Enforcement Decree apply to this case for which taxation requirements have been completed

The provisions of the Enforcement Decree amended in the direction to strengthen taxation requirements are applied to this case for which taxation requirements have been completed after its enforcement, so it cannot be viewed as contrary to the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Suwon District Court 2017Gudan9733

It is stated that only two parcels of land are owned, and a rice shed is self-fluored.

- In the membership certificate (Evidence A 10), the plaintiff * from December 6, 2005 to August 2, 2016 *

It is stated that agricultural cooperatives are members (one million units of investment, and one million won of paid-in investment amount) of agricultural cooperatives.

-The details of sales by trader (Evidence A No. 11) from April 2009 as a member of the Plaintiff,

Up to April 2016, approximately KRW 2250,000,000 in total at a AAF business establishment, agricultural chemicals, and facility costs

The details of purchase of tugboat material are shown.

- A statement of accounts of the purchase price of farm household (from September 1, 2010 to August 1, 2016)

A No. 12) The date of purchase 000, the fact of variety and the quantity of products in the consignment collection sheet column.

2332, converted quantity 200, total sale price 2,835,00 won are stated.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

New 00

000 director of the tax office

March 9, 2018

March 23, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 54,267,651 (including additional tax) for the year 2016 rendered against the Plaintiff by the former Defendant, who was at the office of the Plaintiff, on April 1, 2017, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(1) On September 20, 204, the Plaintiff acquired 00 - 00 - 00 - 000 - 000 - 758 m2, and 9-1 - 000 m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on September 20, 204, and transferred on August 5, 2016, and on October 14, 2016, on October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax for 2016 for each of the instant lands to the Defendant by applying the reduction and exemption of self-farmland for eight years:

The Plaintiff obtained the following salary income:

On April 10, 2017, the Defendant issued a notice of KRW 54,267,651 in addition to the difference, on the ground that the Defendant did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland for 8 years, including the Plaintiff’s annual gross salary of KRW 37 million from 2004 to 2008, on the ground that it did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of farmland for 8 years.

Applicant filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on October 00, 200.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(1) According to the main sentence of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax on the income accrued from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree; 3. Of land cultivated directly by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree between eight and two years. As to the above 1. requirement (the "resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the location of land"), Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "a person who has resided in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland has been located for at least eight years, within a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland has been located, within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, within a 30-km radius from the farmland concerned, who has resided in an area within a 30-km radius from the farmland transfer date and who is a resident (including a person within two years from the date of non-resident)

With respect to the above 2. Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own farmland, or a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating not less than half of the farming work with his own labor on his own farmland."

With respect to the above three requirements (land prescribed by Presidential Decree), Article 66 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act requires that "the farmland which is cultivated by itself for not less than eight years from the time of acquisition to the time of transfer shall not be subject to a certain exclusion." Article 66 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act presents the principle that "the farmland subject to paragraph (4) shall be based on the farmland as of the date of transfer under Article 162 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act," and Article 66 (11) and (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the cultivation period of the decedent shall be regarded as the cultivation period of the inheritor under certain conditions when calculating

On the other hand, Article 6(14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Presidential Decree No. 25211, Feb. 21, 2014) provides that "where there is a taxable period in which the total amount of gross income under Article 20(2) of the same Act is at least 37 million won, the period shall be excluded from the period cultivated by the decedent or resident, and Article 19(2) of the Income Tax Act applies to the same decedent (including his/her spouse; hereinafter the same shall apply) or resident's business income under Article 19(2) of the Income Tax Act (excluding income accruing from agriculture or forestry, income accruing from real estate rental business under Article 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, and side business income of the farm household under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) and Article 20(2) of the same Act during the period cultivated after July 1, 2014 (proviso to Article 1(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

D. The Plaintiff asserts that it is not permissible to exclude self-taxation reduction and exemption based on Article 66(14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act of February 21, 2014, 8 years after the acquisition of the instant land, even though it had already satisfied the requirements for reduction and exemption of self-farmland at the time of eight years after the acquisition thereof, since it goes against the principle of prohibition of retroactive legislation and the principle of protection of trust.

Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that the disposition of this case is legitimate and that of this case is without merit.

1. The main sentence of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act requires that a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the location of farmland shall be the income generated from the transfer of the land he/she has cultivated directly for at least eight years, among the land he/she cultivated directly by means prescribed by Presidential Decree, or the income generated from the transfer of the land prescribed by Presidential Decree. Of these, Article 66(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act concerning the above two requirements (self-Cultivating in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree), and Article 66(4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act concerning the above three requirements (land prescribed by Presidential Decree)

However, Article 66 (14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "the period of cultivation under paragraph (4), (6), (11) and (12) shall be the period of cultivation.If the total amount of gross pay is not less than 37 million won, the period shall be excluded from the period cultivated by the decedent or the resident." The above 3. requirements (the land prescribed by Presidential Decree) are not directly related to the above 2. requirements (the direct cultivation by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree).

Meanwhile, Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act limits the scope of individual exemption to the land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land cultivated by the residents prescribed by Presidential Decree for not less than eight years. Considering the legislative purpose of Article 69(1) of the same Act and the scope of preferential measures for tax exemption for the protection of and support for agriculture, it can be predicted that the provision that exemption from capital gains tax is limited to the case where the necessity of land policies is met for not less than eight years (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba2, Sept. 19, 200), and that the total amount of exemption from capital gains tax is not less than 30,70,000,000 won and is less than 80,000 won and thus, it would be more than 10,000 won and more than 6,000 won, which is the total amount of capital gains tax for six years and more than 6,000 won, which would be excluded from the total amount of capital gains tax for farming.

0. Although the above amendment of the Enforcement Decree was newly established in the year where the Plaintiff owned the instant land. However, insofar as the taxation requirement of the transfer of the instant land has not yet been completed at the time of the enforcement of the above amendment of the Enforcement Decree, it cannot be deemed that the above amendment of the Enforcement Decree in the direction of strengthening the taxation requirement goes against the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation. Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides for the requirement of reduction or exemption of self-owned farmland and specific scope of reduction or exemption to the company. Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that even if the Plaintiff’s new provision of the same Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation was applied to the Plaintiff’s farmland after the enforcement of the above provision, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s new provision of the Restriction of Special Taxation cannot be seen as being applied to the Plaintiff’s new provision of the Restriction of Special Taxation to the extent that it would be beyond the bounds of the necessity of the policies on the transfer of the said land, the Plaintiff’s new provision of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act would not be applied to the transfer.

- In the farmland ledger (which was first drawn up on September 26, 2005, evidence A No. 6), the Plaintiff has no leased farmland.