Requirements for reduction of and exemption from large land and inevitable reasons for impossibility of farming

The fact of cultivation and reduction, etc. of the former owner shall not be deemed to fall under any inevitable reason, and in the case of expropriation, the provision of a novation shall apply only to the commencement of cultivation after the acquisition of farmland.

Articles 69 and 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 67 of the Enforcement Decree thereof

2016Guhap12085 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AA

Head of Dong District Office

April 20, 2017

May 18, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 100,299,305 against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 7, 2003, 00 00 -00 - - 00 - the plaintiff's answer and the same interest.

The answer (hereinafter referred to as "the previous land of this case") is 165,280,000 won

On March 11, 2013, the previous land was transferred in KRW 553,60,000.

B. Meanwhile, on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff’s answer located in 00 Eup/Myeon 00,000,000. (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

“The substitute farmland of this case” has been acquired, and on March 4, 2015, consultation on public land in the Republic of Korea has been made.

was transferred by reason of acquisition.

C. As to the transfer of the previous land of this case as described in paragraph (a) of this Article, the plaintiff is subject to the former Restriction of Special

The former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13560, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act").

C) Transfer income belonging to year 2013 by applying the provisions on reduction and exemption of transfer income tax on farmland substitute land in Article 70.

C. The Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff’s requirements for reduction of farmland on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (b) conducted the investigation;

A. The provision on reduction or exemption, deeming that the substitute farmland in this case is not directly cultivated as of the date of acquisition;

The application shall be excluded, and on December 2, 2015, KRW 100,299,305 (Additional Tax) for the transfer income tax belonging to the Plaintiff in 2013.

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

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 12, Eul evidence 1 and 2, all pleadings

Purport

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) On March 7, 2003, whether the Plaintiff acquired the previous land of this case and transferred it on March 11, 2013

Since 8 years or longer have elapsed, the transfer satisfies the requirements prescribed in Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

Income tax is reduced and exempted (hereinafter referred to as "first argument").

2) On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of the substitute land of this case, the seller’s son already acquired on May 16, 2013

Upon completion of the preparation for the inside of the mother, the plaintiff made the farming house in that year and made the plaintiff in 2014.

on the wind to be reduced in the detention house, and on the wind to be admitted to the said substitute farmland in 2015, the plaintiff shall do so.

The Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case. As such, the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the land of this case.

Since there is a reason for this, it is possible to reduce capital gains tax under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

It is reasonable, and even if there are unavoidable reasons, Article 67(3)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Even if this case does not apply, the protection of farmers through free alternative permission and guarantee of farmland.

In addition, considering the purpose of legislation of the capital gains tax reduction regulations prescribed for the development and encouragement of agriculture.

Such inevitable reasons should be considered (hereinafter referred to as "second argument").

3) The Plaintiff transferred the previous land of this case on March 11, 2013 and thereafter was within one year thereafter.

On May 16, 2013, acquiring the instant substitute farmland, and on March 4, 2015, up to three years thereafter.

Since it was accepted as substitute farmland, the plaintiff is entitled to do so under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Si of Special Taxation Restriction Act

Enforcement Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25211, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter referred to as "former Restriction of Special Taxation Act")

Article 67 (4) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree shall meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (hereinafter referred to as "3").

The argument is called ‘claim'.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Even if the fact that the land has been cultivated as farmland is recognized, the owner of the land shall be a deceased person.

It is not presumed that the land has been farmland, but the fact that the land has been self-refised as farmland is not so alleged.

that person must prove (Supreme Court Decision 92Nu11893 delivered on July 13, 1993).

In light of the above legal principles and relevant statutes, this case is a health team, the plaintiff for at least eight years;

A No. 8 (including a serial number) shown in accordance with the fact that the previous land was owned and self-refised.

(a) the statement, the witness’s written testimony, or the witness’s written testimony, in the light of the circumstances

It is difficult to recognize Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 10 only, and otherwise, it is not possible to recognize it.

there is no evidence that may be prescribed.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Defendant’s farming

In the investigation into requirements for reduction of and exemption from the area, the Plaintiff shall prepare a “written confirmation of the fact of cultivation”, and aaa, State

The plaintiff was the first person to be both civil bbb and c, and bb and c in the above investigation.

‘When the previous land of this case was cultivated on behalf of those who did not set up farming houses up more than 3 to 4 times, and they were cultivated on behalf of them.

3. The aftermari-gu, Cheongju-si, the address of the plaintiff and the aftermari-gu, Cheongju-si, the plaintiff

The previous land is about 30 to 40 minutes on an expressway and about 1 hour on a national highway;

④ The Plaintiff’s domicile from September 3, 1996 to February 2, 2009 and from November 10, 2010 to the above domicile.

From ○ farm to ○ farm, registration of the livestock farming business has been made, and 5. The plaintiff's farming before 2012

It is recognized that there is no material confirming the details of the transaction, such as machinery, etc., even if the Plaintiff had such material.

The previous land of this case was cultivated directly for about ten years from the date of acquisition of the previous land of this case to the date of transfer.

Even if there exists a period of time, it is reasonable that those three to four years were cultivated by those who live in the same manner as above.

Ro. The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the previous land of this case directly for not less than eight years.

2) Determination as to the allegation Nos. 2 and 3

A) Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

In order to apply capital gains tax reduction or exemption to farmland substitute land comprehensively with each provision, previous farmers

A person who resides in a place where the farmland was located and has cultivated another farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland.

Farmland) shall be directly cultivated for not less than three years after acquiring the farmland. Furthermore, capital gains tax reduction;

The self-defluence of substitute farmland as a condition for amnesty shall be active by the transferor who is a person liable for tax payment who asserts it.

The purpose of the regulation on capital gains tax reduction for substitute land is to be proved by the owner of farmland.

The protection of farmers and the development and encouragement of agriculture through the permission and guarantee of flexible substitution is in the protection of farmers and the development and encouragement of agriculture.

The meaning of the necessity for cultivation of the farmland owned by the self-employed farmer after the acquisition and sale of the farmland.

to the extent that it is intended to substitutely discuss (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5924 Decided September 5, 2003)

(see, e.g., Decision)

B) Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff shall take the land of this case on the part of the Plaintiff.

As from May 16, 2013 to 2015, the above substitute farmland was not cultivated directly, the original farmland is not cultivated.

Gohap, the requirements of Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

The Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act stipulating that the plaintiff's assertion of unavoidable reasons is not sufficient.

Article 67(3)1 of the Act and subordinate statutes that were enforced after July 1, 2014 and that were applicable to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are not only Article 27-3(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

It does not constitute an inevitable reason under this subsection, and in accordance with the principle of strict interpretation of the requirements for tax reduction and exemption.

It is not necessary to consider the circumstances of the assertion as unavoidable.

C) Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act; Article 67(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Paragraphs (3) and (3) shall commence farming after acquiring substitute farmland within one year from the date of transfer of the previous land.

After the date of acquisition of substitute farmland, if it is purchased by consultation or expropriated within three years from the date of acquisition, it has been cultivated for at least three years.

Since it is a provision that considers it as a provision, at least after the commencement of cultivation in the substitute farmland, consultation shall be held by the substitute farmland.

It should be deemed that the purchase and expropriation should be required, and it shall be deemed that the substitute farmland has been purchased and expropriated, as alleged by the plaintiff.

It shall be within three years from the date of acquisition of substitute farmland, without taking into account whether the cultivation was commenced;

It includes cases of expropriation by consultation or consultation, which is considered to include cases in the legislative intent of the capital gains tax reduction or exemption provisions.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s land acquisition of the substitute land of this case to the purchase by consultation after the purchase of the substitute land of this case.

In this case, Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not commence the cultivation of land

The requirements of paragraphs (4) and (3) shall not be deemed to have been met.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.