early 2010 Heavy1387 ( December 30, 2010)

Land for non-business use which is not even used for three years or more from among five years immediately before the transfer date or for two years or more from among three years immediately before the transfer date;

The Plaintiff’s land falls under the land for non-business, since there is no farming shed as the main fish farm before the purchase of the land, there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s self-defense for three or more years immediately before the transfer date or for two or more years immediately before the transfer date among the five or more years immediately before the transfer date during the period of possession of the land.

2011Guhap3488 Revocation of revocation of imposition of capital gains tax and tax rate

XX

O Head of tax office

August 10, 2011

September 21, 2011

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The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 436,827,920 on September 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired a 3,847 square meters in Do-gun, Gwangju-gun, Gwangju-do, from 000-00 to 3,847 square meters in Do-ri, and 000-00 to 32 square meters in Do-ri (hereinafter “instant land”). On May 16, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to a golf club XX corporation.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff reported and paid the transfer income tax that applied the special long-term holding deduction and the general transfer income tax rate (36/100) to the Defendant on the ground that the instant farmland was self-sufficient for at least eight years.

C. Accordingly, on September 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notification to pay KRW 436.827.920 of the transfer income tax for the year 2007, since the land of this case was excluded from special long-term holding deduction and the transfer income tax rate (60/10) is applicable since it falls under the land for non-business because the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On March 29, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on December 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1.2 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not own the instant land from 2003 to 2007 from 2003 to 3 years immediately before the date of the transfer of the instant land, the transfer income tax rate shall be applied, rather than the heavy tax rate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 104-3 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 168-6 (1) items of Article 168-6 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), the land in this case shall fall under the non-business land unless the Plaintiff re-convened and re-developed for not less than three years in the five-year period immediately preceding the transfer or for not less than two years in the five-year period immediately preceding the transfer or for not less than 2439 days in the three-year period immediately preceding the transfer or for not less than two years in the three-year period immediately preceding the transfer.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 4, and Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of each of the statements and arguments No. 4 and No. 5, the plaintiff did not have the main farming house before the purchase of the land of this case, and the plaintiff discontinued the business of this case, but the land of this case was engaged in a wholesale business from 1985 to 209 was considerably wideed to 3.91m2 in total, so long as the dry field farming company was running a dry field farming business, there was no evidence to sell harvested material to another place, but it is difficult for the plaintiff to acknowledge that the plaintiff had sold it for consumption only, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's intention of the farming house of this case for the period of not less than 3 years prior to the transfer date of the land of this case and for not less than 3 years but more than 4 years prior to the transfer date.

Therefore, the disposition of this case which applied the heavy taxation rate of capital gains tax on the land for non-business use is legitimate, considering the land of this case as land.

3. Conclusion

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