early 2010 Heavy2639 ( December 10, 2010)

It is difficult to recognize that transferred farmland has been self-sufficient for not less than eight years;

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that a person has resided in the seat of the transferred farmland for not less than eight years according to the current status of transfer on resident registration, it is difficult to recognize that he/she has made a self-cultivation of the transferred farmland in view of the fact that he/she did not possess agricultural machinery necessary for cultivating farmland

2011Guhap3181 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

XX

The superintendent of the tax office

September 1, 2011

October 27, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 100,421,730 against the Plaintiff on December 16, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 3, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired and retained, on August 18, 1988, Gopo-si, Gopo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”), Gopo-si, 000-0, 3779 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”); and (b) transferred, on March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred, to privateB.

B. On May 7, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for tax reduction or exemption to the Defendant on the ground that the instant farmland constitutes “self-arable farmland” under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act at the time of filing a preliminary return of tax base of capital gains tax on the instant farmland.

C. However, on December 16, 2009, the Defendant excluded the application of the above reduction and exemption provisions, and imposed KRW 100,421,730 on the Defendant for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 12, 2010, but was dismissed on December 10, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s father-gu MaapA directly cultivated the farmland of this case for at least eight years, since the Plaintiff resided in the location of the farmland of this case from August 18, 198 to February 3, 1993 from Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Incheon, 00 (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”), which is the neighboring farmland of this case, from August 18, 198 to February 3, 1993; and since the Plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for at least eight years from July 8, 1998 to December 20, 191, since the farmland of this case constitutes “self-farmland for at least eight years” as prescribed in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, capital gains tax on this issue should be reduced or exempted.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable farmland

According to Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21307 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), in order for the farmland of this case to be subject to reduction or exemption from capital gains, the Plaintiff’s decedent’s acquisition of the farmland of this case shall reside in the Si, Gun, Gu, or Gu where the farmland of this case is located for not less than eight years (hereinafter referred to as “the requirements for rural village”),

(2) Whether the requirements for re-operation are met

First of all, according to the evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 4, it can be seen that the transfer status of the network leap A and the plaintiff's resident registration is as follows.

In accordance with this, the deceased leapA, the deceased decedent, can be deemed to have resided in the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City where the farmland of this case is located for a total of eight years or more. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the plaintiff actually resided according to the above resident registration status.

However, the above evidence and evidence, together with the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 4 through 7, are as follows. The plaintiff registered as a resident of Pyeongtaek-dong with his family members (household members) on July 9, 1998. The plaintiff changed his domicile to the farmland location of this case. The plaintiff's family members continued to reside in the apartment located in Pyeongtaek-dong as the head of the plaintiff's newCC until December 20, 201. In particular, the plaintiff's second son-dong's children were born, registered as the above apartment of this case on February 21, 199 to the above 0-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-child-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

(3) Whether the requirements for self-sufficiency are met

Furthermore, the following trends are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire arguments from the evidence revealed in the above sub-villages of the above circumstances. In other words, the Plaintiff’s total amount of wages that the Plaintiff received for 16 years from the above AAAC Co., Ltd. reaches KRW 637,603,00, and the Plaintiff did not possess agricultural machinery necessary to cultivate the farmland of this case 3,779 square meters, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was not cultivated directly in the farmland of this case and notified the KAC as the head of Si/Gu Office in Suwon-si in the jurisdiction of the domicile and the Plaintiff returned the above subsidies for preserving rice income, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff was not cultivated directly in the farmland of this case, and that the Plaintiff returned the above subsidies for preserving rice income to the head of Si/Gu in the jurisdiction of Si/Gu, Suwon-si in the area where the farmland of this case is located, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the defendant's disposition of this case, which imposes capital gains tax, is legitimate without recognizing any one mother or the plaintiff's reduction or exemption from his own farmland. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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.