early 209 middle 1580 ( October 15, 2009)

Whether farmland constitutes land for non-business use

In addition to the fact that land was used as farmland, it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff specifically cultivated from any time to any time.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 202,133,180 for the Plaintiff on February 4, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On August 16, 1986, the Plaintiff acquired 843-10 square meters prior to 843-10 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-do Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and transferred 95 percent shares among the above land to the Plaintiff on May 31, 199 by an exchange contract and July 12, 199, instead of divided transfer and transfer of 50 percent shares, 854-17 square meters and 480 square meters, and 330 percent shares among 854-21 and 363 percent of total 810 square meters and 363 percent of total 810 square meters, on April 22, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred 95 percent shares among the above 843-10 square meters prior to 145 square meters (this case’s land share) and 854-1484-230 square meters and 148-130 square meters, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

B. Upon reporting the transfer income tax on May 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax on the land of this case for at least eight (8) years under Article 69(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Restriction of Tax Reduction or Exemption as it constitutes re-villages and self-developed farmland, but the Defendant did not actually cultivate each of the instant land. On February 11, 2009, the instant land of this case was deemed as land subject to comprehensive aggregate taxation under the Local Tax Act and was subject to imposition of KRW 202,13,180 for the Plaintiff on February 11, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1 to 6, the whole purport of pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff had resided in the above land for more than 843-13 to 22 years in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Kimpo-si, the land of this case, which is adjacent to the land of this case, and the land of this case 2 was acquired through exchange on July 12 of the same year as the land on public register or as farmland in fact, and thus, it does not constitute land for non-business use.

3. Related Acts and subordinate statutes.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

In full view of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a resident living in a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in an area in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for at least eight years has cultivated himself/herself for at least eight years from the time of acquisition of such farmland to the time of transfer, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of such land shall be reduced and exempted, and the fact that the requirements for such reduction and exemption provisions should be proved by

On the other hand, the transfer income tax rate should be increased in case of transfer of non-business land under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act. Whether certain land falls under non-business land falls under the requirements for taxation. However, since the Income Tax Act widely provides land for non-business land, the requirements for non-business land function as grounds for reduction and exemption. In the case of farmland, the criteria for whether it falls under the non-business land are the non-business land are the non-business land, and the taxpayer can easily prove this as the matters belonging to the taxpayer's territory, while the tax authority can easily prove the fact, it is difficult for the taxpayer to prove the fact, while it is difficult for the taxpayer to report and pay the transfer income tax in light of the fact that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to report and submit the evidentiary data by selecting the requirements for taxation and submitting it.

Therefore, there is no dispute about whether the Plaintiff had resided in the land of this case for more than 20 years from the side of each land of this case, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had cultivated the land of this case for any specific time from the time to time, as well as from the fact that the Plaintiff had used the land of this case as farmland. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, there is no violation of the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.