Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Group-25316 ( January 11, 2014)

Whether it constitutes a self-defense of eight years;

(As with the judgment of the first instance court), the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, by 2011, worked for an accounting firm and provided his own self-sufficiency is groundless.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Seoul High Court-2014-Nu-58404 ( October 14, 2015)

Park*

*The Director of the Tax Office

National Rotations

November 26, 2014

January 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

- 2-

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in July 1, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2013

The imposition of KRW 2,883,120 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this court should explain are especially emphasized by this court.

Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, except for any addition below.

Paragraph (2) shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff including the key land 1 of this case by means of new walls, weekends and holidays

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff has cultivated part of the land before the division and that this is based on the confirmation document issued by the head of the Tong residing near the instant land. Although the Plaintiff has been working as a certified public accountant, according to the data of the Statistics Korea, the labor force to be put into one year with respect to 1,00 square meters (10a) per year in the case of 2013, is only 12.68 hours per year, and the average audit company per certified public accountant per year in 2013 is only 2.11, even if the Plaintiff was working as a certified public accountant, such fact does not hinder the Plaintiff’s recognition that the Plaintiff had replaced the instant land for 8 years or more. Therefore, the instant disposition that did not reduce or exempt capital gains tax pursuant to the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) The meaning of the abbreviationd language used below is the same as that of the first instance judgment.

- 3-

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff worked as a certified public accountant from 1983 to 2011; (ii) the Plaintiff appears to have worked for a considerable period of time in light of its income amount; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s direct cultivation of farmland refers to the Plaintiff’s full-time cultivation of crops or perennial plants in his own farmland or cultivation of 1/2 or more of them with his own labor; and (iv) the Plaintiff, who appears to have worked for the purpose of reducing the exemption requirements of capital gains tax by referring to the “person residing in the seat of such farmland” as stipulated in Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, barring any special circumstance, bears the burden of proof for the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff’s disposal of farmland by 1983 to 201, namely, the Plaintiff’s disposal of farmland for farming purposes, such as the reduction of 1/20 or more of 1/200 of 3-year agricultural stock supply certificates, 1/200 or more of 1-year agricultural stock supply certificates.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.