Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap1069 (2012.05.04)

early 2010 Heavy195 (O3, 2011)

It is difficult to see that farmland has been self-sufficient for at least eight years, and corresponding to the land for non-business use.

Since it is confirmed that several places of business are operated in an area unrelated to the location of land during the retention period of land, it is difficult to directly cultivate land of a large scale while engaging in another occupation, and there is no objective data on farming, it is difficult to view that land was self-fisced, and it falls under land for non-business use.

(Chuncheon)Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax;

Section AA

The Head of Hongcheon Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap1069 Decided May 4, 2012

November 14, 2012

November 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 on March 4, 2010 against the Plaintiff on March 4, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1991. 12. 14. 강원 인제읍 OO리 00-2 전 22，393㎡， 1992. 8. 19. 강원 인제읍 OO리 00 대 394㎡， 같은 리 00-1 전 9，874㎡， 같은 리 60 전 1，567㎡ 및 같은 리 63 전 545㎡(이하 각 토지를 통틀어 '이 사건 각 토지'라고 한다)에 관하여 각 자신 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

B. The Plaintiff sold each of the instant lands to EE on May 7, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E on June 3 of the same year.

C. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff, upon filing a preliminary return of capital gains tax on each of the instant land with respect to the Defendant for the preliminary return of capital gains tax on each of the instant land, has cultivated each of the instant

D. On March 4, 2010, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax and determined and notified KRW 000 as income tax on the transfer income tax for the Plaintiff for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by applying 60% heavy tax rate to the Plaintiff, on the ground that it cannot be confirmed that the Plaintiff’s land of this case was self-employed for at least eight years.

E. On June 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 3, 2011, and served the written decision on March 7, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 2, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant argues that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff did not own each of the land of this case and the plaintiff acquired each of the land of this case and transferred it to EE on June 3, 2008, and the transfer income tax should be exempted in accordance with the provision on reduction and exemption of transfer income tax for self-owned farmland under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. Determination

(1) The Defendant asserting that the instant land constitutes non-business land on the ground that the Plaintiff did not own the instant land, and the Plaintiff is responsible for proving that the instant land was not self-sufficient as prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) that applies to the instant disposition, and the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301, Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 201). The meaning of "self-Cultivating" under Article 104-3 of the former Income Tax Act as to non-business farmland subject to heavy taxation refers to the meaning of "self-arable under the Farmland Act", i.e., engaging in cultivating crops or growing plants on the instant land, or engaging in cultivating at least 1/2 of farming or growing labor force.

(2) We examine the instant case in accordance with such legal doctrine.

According to Gap's evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, the land category of 1 to 2, and the other land 1 to 3, except for the above OO0 among the land in this case is 1 to 4, and the land category of 2 to 3, and 7, and each of the entries with evidence Nos. 8 are as follows: (i) the plaintiff had no more than 00 won in 1995, and the plaintiff had no more than 3,000 won in 1 to 200, and the plaintiff had no more than 3,000 won in 1 to 200, and the plaintiff had no more than 1 to 3,000 won in 1 to 205, and had no more than 1 to 7,000 won in Jyang for each of the above land, and the plaintiff had no more than 1 to 3,000, and had no more than 7,000 won in JMM in 207.

(3) Therefore, each of the instant lands constitutes non-business land, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful, and on different premise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the remainder of the land is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.