Early High Court Decision 201Du1245 ( October 24, 2011)

It is recognized as a direct cultivation and cultivation for at least eight years after planting crops, such as sti trees on land.

In light of the fact that a considerable number of sti trees are planted in airline professionals, the fact that neighboring residents or agricultural materials distributors have submitted a confirmation document confirming their self-competitiveness, the fact that landscaping business operators have purchased sti trees, and the fact that landscaping business operators have submitted a confirmation document that they have purchased sti trees and a document proving their transaction price, etc., it is recognized as being less than 8 years.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap13003 Disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax

HongA

port of origin

July 6, 2012

August 24, 2012

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2011 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 26, 201, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed redB, and from the KimCC, the OO200, 000, 903 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si, and 6,474 square meters in total (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) prior to 00,000 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si, and transferred all of the instant lands to DaD on February 26, 2010.

B. Article 69(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation (amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land for at least eight years upon reporting the scheduled tax base of capital gains tax on each of the instant land to the Defendant on April 28, 2010.

In this application, capital gains tax reduction application was made.

C. However, on January 5, 201, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not know that each of the instant lands was self-owned for at least eight years, and excluded the special long-term holding deduction under Article 95 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), thereby correcting and notifying the Plaintiff of capital gains tax of KRW 209,793,530 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 24, 201.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 5 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

After acquiring each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff directly cultivated and cultivated crops, such as Tak tree, on each of the instant lands for at least eight years. Therefore, each of the instant lands does not constitute a non-business land as a self-arable farmland under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and the instant disposition by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The plaintiff did not submit objective evidence on the fact that he cultivated and cultivated crops, such as sti trees, on each land of this case for at least eight years. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff cultivated and cultivated sti trees, etc. on each land of this case for at least eight years, in light of the quantity and management status of sti trees planted at the time of each of the above lands, it cannot be viewed as farmland at the time of transfer, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff cultivated and cultivated more than half of the pertinent farming work with his own labor, and it cannot be viewed as self-arable farmland.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that “The tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to agricultural income tax and which is directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree residing in the seat of farmland for at least eight years,” and “direct cultivation” under Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) refers to the case where a resident engages in the cultivation of agricultural products or perennial plants in his/her own farmland at all times or cultivates or cultivates them with his/her own labor.”

(2) In light of the above provisions and the contents of the relevant laws and regulations, the health team and the agency in charge of this case

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the descriptions and images of evidence 23 (including paper numbers), the testimony of the witness ChoE, and the testimony of the witness DNA part of the testimony, the whole purpose of the pleadings, and the following circumstances, the plaintiff can sufficiently recognize the facts that the plaintiff planted agricultural crops such as shot trees on each of the instant land and directly cultivated and cultivated them for not less than eight years, and the testimony of Eul and 3, and 6, and the testimony of ED is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

① From May 28, 1987 to March 18, 2010, the transfer date of each of the instant lands from around 20 years to around March 18, 2010, the Plaintiff has been engaged in the type of business related to agriculture and livestock, such as fish business, while residing in Pyeongtaek-si Obl 00 located in the vicinity of each of the said lands.

② The airline margin of each of the instant lands taken around July 1998 (Evidence No. 21-1 of the Evidence A) appears to have planted a large number of shot trees on each of the instant lands, and it appears that each airline team (Evidence No. 19-2 of the Evidence A) taken in 2008 and 2009 also concentrated on the above lands. Furthermore, it is confirmed that shot trees were cultivated and cultivated on the above lands on the background of the land taken around December 2009 on the background of the 00-15 land of Pyeongtaek-si spoon spoon OOri-Eup spoon in the instant case (Evidence No. 15-6 of the Evidence No. 15-6).

③ At the time of the Defendant’s on-site verification investigation, around September 2010, neighboring residents Cho EE responded testified that “the Plaintiff sold shot tree as shot tree in each of the instant land, cultivated shots, and vegetables. On November 9, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation document (Evidence A No. 12) to the same effect as the above answer to the Plaintiff, and even in the court, the Plaintiff brought shot tree seedlings to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was transferred to each of the instant land, and the remaining shots were sold to the landscaping business entity, and the Plaintiff testifieded that the remaining shots were planted, shots, shots, etc. on the remaining shots, which were the seller of nearby agricultural materials and materials, and that it was inconsistent with each of the above verification documents (Evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, and each of the above evidence is found otherwise.

④ From September 28, 2006, Park Jong-chul purchased KRW 15 (No. 7) per share from the Plaintiff on September 28, 2010, Pyeongtaek-si Obl 00 won, and the HongJ purchased KRW 24 (No. 7) from the Plaintiff on September 29, 2010, KRW 00 per share of KRW 200 (No. 7-2 and 3) with the Plaintiff’s written confirmation that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 200 per share of KRW 00 per share of KRW 00 (No. 20-1 and 4) with the Plaintiff’s written confirmation that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 15 (No. 20-4) with the Plaintiff on September 29, 2010, and on April 205, 2005.

⑤ At least 30 neighboring residents of each land of this case, including AL, prepared and submitted a written confirmation to the effect that “the Plaintiff had observed frequently that shot trees were cultivated and sold at the above farm, and that shot trees were planted, and that shot trees were planted,” (No. 9-1 through 3, and evidence No. 10).

④ When the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant lands to DoD, it transferred the instant land to DoD along with 000 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-do, Sasi 000 square meters in its neighboring area, and 420 square meters in the said Ri, and as a result of the on-site investigation conducted by the tax office, the Plaintiff was confirmed to be farmland directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years, and the said neighboring land was exempted from capital gains tax.

7) On September 2010, the title of investigation into the capital gains tax on each land of this case prepared by the Defendant’s investigating agent (No. 2) stated that the land of this case, among each land of this case at the time of the on-site investigation into the actual site was planted to a level of about 00,00, which was actually site. However, in light of the fact that the above on-site investigation was conducted after about 6 months from the transfer date of each land of this case ( February 26, 2010) and DoD was conducted after about 6 months from the transfer date of each land of this case, and that it appears that most of the Ra trees, which were planted on the ground in the process of organizing nearby land in order to extend the livestock shed immediately after the Plaintiff acquired each land of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the present condition at the time of the transfer of each land of this case was not farmland solely based on the contents in the above survey mold.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption from capital gains tax on self-arable farmland, and excluded special deduction for long-term possession by deeming each

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided and ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.