Examination Transfer 208-0261 ( December 23, 2008)

Whether it is eligible for reduction of or exemption from the transfer income tax for direct farmland for eight years or more.

The land is registered as a business entity, and according to the detailed statement of agreement on water compensation for obstacles prior to expropriation, there is a warehouse, fence, container office, gravel floor of 600 square meters, etc., and it is not farmland as of the date of transfer, and thus excluded from reduction or exemption

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 56,396,310 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On August 9, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the land of this case to the Korea Land Corporation in Seo-gu, Incheon Special Metropolitan City (the land was divided into 509-3 and 509-19 square meters, on November 12, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax with the Defendant on September 21, 2007 on the ground that the instant land was reduced or exempted from capital gains tax as prescribed in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that it is the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for not less than eight years.

B. On August 1, 2008, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that imposed KRW 56,396,310 on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2008, on the ground that the instant land does not constitute one’s own farmland subject to reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for at least eight years.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and raised an objection on August 8, 2008, but was dismissed, and on November 17, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on December 23, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (a) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff had resided in the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City where the instant land is located or its adjacent area while cultivating yeast, such as distribution and reduction of capital, on the instant land for not less than eight years from 1994 to 2008, and accordingly, the instant land constitutes the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but the instant disposition otherwise reported is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 66(1)2 and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that the transfer income tax shall be reduced or exempted on the land used for the real cultivation as of the date of transfer in which a resident has cultivated directly for not less than eight years between the time of acquisition from a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or a resident residing in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto until the time of transfer from the time of acquisition, and Article 66(12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the said direct cultivation means that the resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants on his/her own farmland or cultivating them with his/her own labor, and that the transferor of land must prove that he/she has transferred the land (see Supreme Court Decision 996Da 194.

이 사건의 경우 원고가 이 사건 토지를 취득한 때로부터 양도할 때까지 사이에 8년 이상 직접 경작하고, 나아가 한국토지공사에 이 사건 토지를 양도할 당시에 이 사건 토지가 농지였는지 여부에 관하여 살펴보건대, 이에 부합하는 듯한 증거로는 갑 제3 내지 5호증의 각 기재가 있으나, 을 제3 내지 15호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 토지(509-3 토지)에는, 1988. 10. 30.부터 1994. 8. 17.까지 산업기계 제조업 등을 하는 '★★산업' 이, 2000. 3. 9.부터 2000. 11. 24.까지는 철문 등 제조업을 하는 업체로서 원고가 운영하였던 '○○테크'가, 2003. 11. 15.부터 2004. 12. 10.까지는 고철 등 도매업을 하 는 '◎◎자원'이 각 그 사업장소재지로 하여 사업자등록이 되어 있었던 점, ② 최●●은 2005. 12. 7. 한국토지공사와 사이에 이 사건 토지(509-3) 지상의 지장물에 관하 여 보상 협의를 한 후 보상금 15,936,832원을 수령하였는데, 그 지장물 내역은 담장 (시멘트벽돌블럭조), 창고 2개(샌드위치판넬조, 샌드위치판넬즙), 차양(샌드위치판넬 조), 복숭아나무 2주 등이었고, 또한 위와 같이 이 사건 토지(509-3)를 사업장소재지로 한 '◎◎자원'을 운영하는 장◇◇ 역시 2007. 6. 7. 한국토지공사와 사이에 이 사건 토지 지상의 지장물에 관하여 보상 협의를 한 후 보상금 26.666.666원을 수령하였는데, 그 지장물 내역은 사무실(컨테이너), 견사(철망 합판조), 담장(쇠파이프천막조, 각목함석조, 함석조, 합판조 등), 바닥(건설재활용자갈), 화장실, 자재, 차양(쇠파이프 판넬조) 등이었던 점, ③ 2006년 촬영된 이 사건 토지의 항공사진에 의하면 경작의 흔 적을 발견할 수 없고, 대신 창고 퉁으로 컨테이너, 자재 등이 적치되어 있는 것이 확인 되는 점, ④ 한편 원고는 이 사건 토지를 소유하고 있었던 기간 동안 주식회사 삼양제넥스, 대현기공 동에서 근로소득을 얻었거나 이 사건 토지를 사업장소재지로 둔 '○○테크'를 통한 사업소득을 얻었던 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 보면 위 각 제3 내지 5호 증의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 이 사건 토지를 8년 이상 직접 경작하고 양도일 현재 농지였음을 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the disposition of this case by the defendant without a capital gains tax reduction under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.