As the transfer of this case cannot be subject to the special long-term holding deduction, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion that the land of this case does not constitute land for non-business use, and the plaintiff's assertion that the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should apply because it constitutes land for non-business use for not less than eight years.

Articles 69 and 133 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Daejeon District Court-2017-Gu Group-720 ( November 29, 2018)

○○

○ Head of tax office

October 25, 2018

November 29, 2018

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff acquired on January 17, 1981 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was acquired on January 17, 1981, 1,511 square meters of the paddy

H. On March 15, 2016, the instant land is transferred on March 15, 2016, and the land is substituted on May 31, 2016.

Article 95 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14389, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Special deduction for long-term possession under paragraph (1) and the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Act No. 14390, Dec. 20, 2016)

Capital gains on self-owned farmland for at least eight years under Article 69; hereinafter the same shall apply)

The transfer income tax on the land of this case was reported by applying tax reduction and exemption.

B. As a result of examining the Plaintiff’s report of capital gains tax, the Defendant’s land for non-business

(1) No person shall be eligible for special deduction for long-term holding under Article 95 (1) of the former Income Tax Act.

Considering that it is excluded, capital gains tax of KRW 102,690,110 for the Plaintiff on December 5, 2016, 2016.

B. A correction and notification was made (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 5, 2017.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Land in this case does not fall under land for non-business, and land owned by the plaintiff for at least eight years.

capital gains tax should be reduced by 100% pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act because it falls under the category

As such, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

- 3-

C. Determination

1) Details of the relevant legislation

In calculating the transfer income tax on paddy field, dry field, and orchard, the period of land ownership shall be five years.

In cases of more than two years, the period exceeding two years from among five years immediately before the transfer date and one year from among three years immediately before the transfer date.

excess period, the period exceeding the period equivalent to 40/100 of the holding period of the land

Farmland, the owner of which does not reside at the location of the farmland or which is not cultivated by himself/herself, shall be private;

For the purpose of business, a special deduction for long-term possession cannot be obtained, and the tax rate separately determined shall apply.

(c) The residence of farmland in the location of farmland is the same Si/Gun/Gu or year as the location of farmland;

In fact, within 30 kilometers in a straight line from the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu or farmland;

State (hereinafter referred to as "re- village") means state (Articles 95, 104, and 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act);

(iv).

In addition, a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in farmland for at least eight years;

(1) Reduction in the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by such method;

100/100 of the capital gains tax on any income accruing from such income, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 per annum;

section 69(1) and Article 133(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(iv).

2) Whether the instant land is non-business land

According to the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff on January 17, 1981.

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land and transferred it on March 15, 2016, and the Plaintiff seen the instant land.

The period of re- village for a limited period of 161 months may be recognized as approximately approximately 161 months.

The Plaintiff resided in ○○ from September 27, 2000 to April 29, 2015, and the period is the same.

At the end of the week, the land of this case shall be kept in the place of the church with the resident registration place at Ansan ○, while the church work at the end of the week

It is alleged that the Plaintiff had cultivated spawn, but only the description of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 9 submitted by the Plaintiff

It is insufficient to recognize the charge and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the instant land did not satisfy the requirements of Article 168-6 subparagraph 1 of the former Income Tax Act.

Since it constitutes non-business land, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Whether the tax amount is reduced or exempted for one’s own farmland for eight years

According to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant re-entered from the land of this case, and safined by the plaintiff.

The period shall not be considered to be 11 years and shall not fall under the requirements for land for business, but shall be at least eight years.

by applying 100 million won, which is the limit of the reduced or exempted tax amount, to the calculation and determination of capital gains tax;

Since it is recognized that there is an excessive fact, the first-party plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges