early 2010 Heavy2836 ( November 29, 2010)

There is no objective evidence of the self-sufficiency requirement, and it is difficult to deem that it has been neglected for a considerable period of time due to the absence of farmland.

It is difficult to regard that the land was self-arable because the current state, land category, land category, and land area were located in the Class-I general residential area for the specific use area, and the land was abandoned for a considerable period of time due to the fact that containers, etc. were loaded on the land in the state of the site not farmland.

2011Guhap803 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Transfer Income Tax Correction

XX Kim

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

August 23, 2011

September 27, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 16, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 1968, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed 527m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”). On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the purchase price of KRW 850,000,000 to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Forestry Association.

B. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff voluntarily paid KRW 190,126,990 of the transfer income tax reverted to 2010, while filing a voluntary report with the Defendant on February 10, 201 by deeming that the instant land was self-sufficient for at least eight years, and that the full amount of the transfer income tax was reduced.

C. After that, on May 3, 2010, the Plaintiff reversed a revised return and filed a request for the correction of capital gains tax to the Defendant to refund KRW 190,126,990 paid at the time of the revised return.

D. However, on August 16, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the instant land does not constitute one of its own farmland for not less than eight years, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification of capital gains tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 20, 2010, but was dismissed on November 19, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while managing a Council member in neighboring areas during the period of time until the acquisition and transfer of the instant land, had been engaged in growing attention from the instant land for not less than eight years, and the Defendant’s disposition otherwise determined is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Requirements for exemption from capital gains tax, etc. for self-farmland

"In order to be eligible for exemption from capital gains tax, etc., the fact that the land in this case is directly cultivated for not less than eight years from the time when the Plaintiff acquired the land in this case to the time of transfer pursuant to Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10068, Mar. 12, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 66 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) must be recognized that the transferor resided in the Si/Gun/Gu where the land in this case is located or Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than eight years from the time he/she acquired the farmland in this case to the time of transfer. The "direct cultivation" here means that the transferor is constantly engaged in cultivating or cultivating crops or perennial plants in his/her own labor. The burden of proof for such requirements is recognized to the Plaintiff (2).

(A) Although the land of this case is categorized as a answer on the public register, it is located within the current land category on the land characteristics table from around 2007 to around 2009, and is located within a Class-I general residential area on the special-purpose area. Meanwhile, in a satellite photograph around September 2004 and July 2009, it appears that the land of this case was loaded on the site in the state of the site.

(B) The transfer status on resident registration during the period of acquiring the Plaintiff’s land of this case is as follows.

(C) On September 15, 1966, the Plaintiff, as an oriental medical doctor, is running a real estate lease business for the business place with 31-26, 41, 40-00, 400 OO2, 00 OO2, 400 OO2, 400 O2, 500, 500, and 500 OO2, 1966. The amount of income reported by the Plaintiff while running one member is as follows.

(D) According to the current status of ownership in the farmland ledger as a member of the North Korean Agricultural Cooperative, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff owns farmland, etc. of five parcels, 7,148 square meters in total, in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul.

(E) Around April 2010, 2010, this Chapter written a certificate of cultivation (No. 3-2) to the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff was satisfing the instant land. After that, there was no confirmation that the Plaintiff was satisfing on the instant land in the course of the on-site verification by the tax officials belonging to the Defendant, but there was no confirmation that the Plaintiff was satisfing on the instant land. The instant land was temporarily used as a garbage storage yard in the city where the flood occurred twice and twice in 196 and 1999, but only was removed from the upper part of the land, and was satisfing on the satfing land. On the other hand, the tax officials belonging to the Defendant re-written the certificate to the effect that the residents were satisfing on the surrounding part of the instant land that the instant land was abandoned.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 11-1 through 4, Eul's statement or video Nos. 12-14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Whether the plaintiff satisfies the requirements for self-reliance

In light of the following circumstances, the land category of this case is the answer to the public register, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's self-defense requirements have been met. Rather, the land category of this case is the land category of 7,8,11 through 13, and it is located within a Class-I general residential area for the specific use area, and it seems that the status of this case has been left unattended for a considerable period of time as a site, not farmland, including the land of this case, although the plaintiff owned farmland of 7,148 square meters, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff's self-defense requirements have been met. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's assertion to the purport that it is difficult for the plaintiff to arbitrarily submit evidence about farmland cultivation, agricultural facilities, and agricultural chemicals use, etc., which are necessary for the plaintiff's self-defense, as otherwise alleged in the above, because it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's land of this case was not easily acquired during the specific use area as well as the plaintiff's opinion.

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.