Review Transfer 2009-0265 (Law No. 19, 2010)

Whether directly cultivating farmland has been cultivated

Although it is alleged that farmland was cultivated directly even during the military service period, there is no evidence to regard that farmland was cultivated.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 49,152,870 on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff acquired shares of 1/20 of 20 square meters among 00 ○○○○○○-dong 604-4 Do 628 square meters on July 6, 1989, 20/20 on the ground of inheritance on July 6, 1989, on the ground of division of inherited property on May 29, 199, 17/20 on the ground of gift on June 22, 199, but transferred the transfer income tax to ○○○○-dong 604-4 Do 628 square meters, and applied for reduction or exemption as farmland for at least eight years under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. From June 24, 1999 to August 23, 2001, the Defendant determined and notified capital gains tax reduction of KRW 71,971,440 to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, as the Plaintiff was performing active duty service for two years and two months from June 24, 1999 to August 23, 2001, excluding the period, and thus, it does not constitute a self-defense for not less than eight years.

C. On October 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on October 27, 2009, and recognized that 1/20 shares acquired on July 6, 1989 and 2/10 shares acquired on May 29, 199 as farmland subject to reduction and exemption, and was reduced by 22,818,570 won among the dispositions on March 4, 2010, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 19, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, Gap's 10, Eul's 1

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the dispositions of this case are appropriate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

From August 3, 1998, the Plaintiff resided with his parents in the farmland of this case and cultivated them. Since the mother-friendly KimB, whose livelihood is the same during the period of military service, cultivated the land of this case, the Plaintiff should be included in the cultivation period of the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

No evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff had cultivated the farmland in this case even during the military service period. Although the Plaintiff had cultivated the farmland in this case, Article 23 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not apply to the transfer of 17/20 of the “donation” among the farmland in this case received by the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for re- village and self-defense under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff in the first disposition of imposition.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.