It is difficult to view that the spouse has held the title trust of real estate, and there is no ground to view that the spouse has limited to eight years.

It is difficult to see that the instant real estate was in title trust with the spouse, and it is difficult to see that the spouse was in one’s own interest

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Incheon District Court-2016-Gu Group-51518

Jo Nam-Nam

OO Head of the tax office

2017.06.13

2017.07.28

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won on July 8, 2016 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on July 8, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 7, 200 to March 2, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and possessed 000 square meters prior to 000 square meters, 000 square meters prior to 000 square meters, and 00 square meters prior to 00 square meters of the same Dong (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) at auction, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of expropriation in the future of the Korea Land-based Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land-based Corporation”), and acquired the said additional provisions by applying the same provision to the said preliminary return on January 18, 2013, and by applying the same provision to 100 square meters prior to 000 square meters prior to and after March 2, 2013 (hereinafter “00 square meters”). The Plaintiff received the said preliminary return on January 18, 2013 (amended by Act No. 11623, Jan. 16, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. As to this, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s exemption and reduction of capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not do so for at least eight years, and on July 8, 2016, issued a disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 2000 on the Plaintiff for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal against the instant disposition by asserting that he/she himself/herself had voluntarily paid the farmland of this case for at least eight years, but was dismissed on October 31, 2016. [Grounds for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 11, and 12 (including the Serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s husband, the Plaintiff’s husband, is a fund accumulated in the construction site of Saudi Arabia, the Chinese house, etc., and the land of this case is registered in title after purchasing the main apartment house of July 6, 198, the main apartment of December 30, 1996, the main apartment of December 30, 199, and the auction price of the farmland of this case in order to sell it and pay 000 won to the Plaintiff. Since the farmland of this case directly cultivated the farmland of this case for not less than eight years, the provision on capital gains tax reduction and exemption for self-employed farmland shall apply, or since the land of this case was acquired in the name of the Plaintiff as compensation for expropriation of the farmland of this case, the provision on capital gains tax reduction and exemption for farmland of this case based on Article 70 of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation shall apply. However, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion on title trust

(4) If the burden of proof on the existence of tax facts is found to exist but the other party is presumed to have not been subject to the empirical rule-based rule-based income. The real estate acquired under the name of the married couple pursuant to Article 830(1) of the Civil Act shall be presumed to have been the unique property of the nominal owner. In order to reverse the presumption of such specific property, the other spouse bears the burden of paying the price for the real estate in question, and it shall not be deemed that there was a title trust as to the pertinent real estate by the mere fact that the other spouse was the source of the purchase fund, and it shall not be deemed that the other spouse acquired the real estate in question for 10 years prior to the acquisition of the real estate. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the other spouse was not subject to the title trust-based income for 10 years prior to the acquisition of the real estate in question by 100, 2006Du8068, Sept. 25, 2008.

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit on the premise that Seo Yong-Du is the title truster of the farmland in this case.

2) Determination on the assertion that an act constitutes a self-farmland (determination on the assumption that an act is a title truster, as alleged by the Plaintiff)

Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree at the seat of farmland for not less than eight years, by means prescribed by Presidential Decree;" Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that "an amount of tax equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for income accruing from the substitute land as prescribed by Presidential Decree for farmland directly cultivated by a resident who resides at the seat of farmland in such manner as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and Article 66(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be deemed that a resident is regularly engaged in the cultivation of crops or the growing of perennial plants on his/her own, or who is regularly entitled to 1/2 or 70 percent of labor force".

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the argument in the present case, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff strongly asserted that the farmland was cultivated by himself in the pre-assessment review and tax appellate proceedings, and did not accept such assertion; (ii) the Plaintiff reversed the previous argument that his spouse Kim Yong-kin was self-fluenced with the title trust master, along with the instant farmland; and (iii) most of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff during the aforementioned pre-trial procedure and the instant pleadings were consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the farmland was self-fluenced, and there are little materials consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said farmland was self-fluenced, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the pertinent materials were ordinarily engaged in cultivating the farmland in the present case, or cultivated one-half or more of the farming works with the labor force in the field of the instant farmland, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the revocation of the instant disposition on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.