2013west2277 (2013.07.09)

It is not proven that the resident registration address is located near the land of this case and that the fact that the resident registration meets the requirements for re-village and self-reliance is not proven.

Even if the resident registration address was located near the land of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the actual resident had actually resided in other areas, such as confirmation of the details of earned income in other areas, and it is not proven that the requirements for re-resident

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland) Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland

2013Gudan53809 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

April 16, 2014

May 28, 2014

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation Costs borne by the Plaintiff

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 24, 200, the Plaintiff inherited 497 square meters prior to 00-3, 70722 square meters prior to 7072-4, and 7050-2 4.38 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) from ○○○○-Gu, ○○○-si, ○○○○-si, 2000, and filed an application for reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax on the premise that the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for re-resident and self-resident on May 30, 2012.

B. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 44,185,000 for the transfer income tax corresponding to the year 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for re-village and self-reliance (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of Recognition] A. A. 1, 2, 6, 10 to 12-3, 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant land is subject to full reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, since the Plaintiff, an inheritor, resided in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, for more than eight years, and directly cultivated the instant land. Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 200 to August 16, 2006, the plaintiff is recognized as having been working at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, from August 17, 2006 to January 12, 2009. On the other hand, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6, the plaintiff is recognized as having been working at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a date of acquisition of the land of this case from Oct. 24, 200 to Oct. 24, 2009.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not prove that the Plaintiff met the requirements for re-domination and self-reliance on the instant land, the instant disposition made on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.