Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Group-1395 (Law No. 18, 2018)

High Court 2017J 445 (No. 28, 2017)

Whether it constitutes a reduction of farmland substitute land

It is difficult to recognize the establishment area of a mushroom as a site for facilities prescribed by Presidential Decree, which are production facilities for agricultural and livestock products under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Farmland Act, and further, it cannot be interpreted that it is included in the "agricultural shed, compost shed, pumping station, pumping station, marsh, farm, waterway, etc." under Article 27 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Substitute Land for Farmland

Seoul High Court 2018Nu58105

Chapter AA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court 2017Gudan1395

october 02, 2018

oly 23, 2018

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional tax) for the plaintiff on October 0, 000 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the 5th judgment of the court of first instance is applied to the 5th judgment of the court of first instance as the 3rd judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 on December 1, 2016, KRW 00 on December 14, 2016, KRW 00,000 on December 30, 2016, KRW 00,000 on December 30, 2016, and KRW 00,000,000 on July 12, 2017, the instant disposition contains procedural errors arising therefrom.

On December 1, 2016, the Defendant initially notified the Plaintiff of the capital gains tax of KRW 00,00,000 on the transfer of land 1 and 2, and then corrected the capital gains tax to KRW 00,000 on December 14, 2016 (No. 4 and 5 evidence) by deeming the settlement area of the mushroom farming company of the instant land as farmland, and reducing the capital gains tax to KRW 00,000 (No. 1, 200,000). The Defendant again reported that the purpose of the correction and the notified tax reduction to KRW 0 (0,000,000 per original notified tax amount to KRW -0,000,000, and that the notified tax amount to KRW 00,000,000 was reduced to KRW 10,000,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 200 (No. 9,000,000).

Ultimately, the Defendant merely corrected the capital gains tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 as originally notified to the Defendant on December 14, 2016 and July 12, 2017, and did not rectify the capital gains tax to KRW 0,000 after correcting the capital gains tax to KRW 0,000 in the middle as alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no procedural illegality in the Defendant’s respective disposition of reduction or rectification. The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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