early 201J 1397 (Law No. 19, 2011)

Land for non-business use that is difficult to be recognized as a minor farmland;

In full view of the fact that a construction and sales business company works as a representative director or obtains business income from manufacturing business, etc., and that a neighboring farmer takes charge of farming work and pays compensation to him/her during the previous farmland holding period, it is difficult to recognize that he/she has cultivated 1/2 or more of farming work with his/her own labor during the previous farmland holding

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Guhap12734 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

June 8, 2012

July 6, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on October 11, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 평택시 팽성읍 O리 000 전 1，659㎡， 000 전 152㎡， 000 전 686㎡， 같은읍 OO리 000 답 704㎡， 000 623㎡(이하 통틀어 '이 사건 각 농지'라고 한다)를 취득하여 보유하다가 2008. 12. 3. 및 2008. 12. 24. 이 사건 각 농지를 모두 양도한 후， 2009. 11. 26. 평택시 팽성읍 OO리 000 답 2，139.6㎡를 매수하여 그 소유권이 전등기를 마쳤다.

B. On January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on capital gains tax and tax base for each transfer marginal profits of the instant farmland with the Defendant, and filed a request for capital gains tax reduction or exemption by applying Article 70(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Tax Reduction or Exemption (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) which is a provision on capital gains tax reduction or exemption on substitute farmland on the grounds that each of the said farmland price is reduction or exemption of substitute farmland.

C. However, on October 11, 2010, the Defendant denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax which caused substitute farmland on the ground that each of the above farmland constitutes a non-business land as a result of the on-site verification survey, and applied 60% of the heavy tax rate under Article 104(1)2-7 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of capital gains tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

D. On July 19, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal and filed an appeal, but the said claim was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since each farmland of this case does not constitute a non-business land as a self-owned farmland cultivated by the plaintiff, the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 67(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010), and Article 67(2) and Article 3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in order to be subject to reduction or exemption from capital gains tax due to the substitute land for farmland, ① previous land and newly acquired land shall be farmland, ② former land shall be directly cultivated for three or more years, and plus three or more years, they shall be directly cultivated while residing in a new farmland. ③ The period between the date of transfer of the previous land and the date of acquisition of new farmland shall be within one year, and the period between the newly acquired farmland and the newly acquired farmland shall be 1/2 of the area of farmland and 1/3 or more of the value of farmland transferred, and Article 201-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21065, Apr. 21, 2000, and 168) of the former farmland.

(2) Comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (i) the Plaintiff had been engaged in health care in this case; (ii) the number of 7; (iii) the number 1; (iv) the number 1; and part of the testimony of the Plaintiff; and (v) the Plaintiff had been engaged in agricultural products sales business during the period from August 26, 2003 to December 31, 2008; (v) the Plaintiff had been engaged in agricultural products sales business for each of the above 6G 1; (v) the number 6; and (v) the number 1; and (v) the agricultural products less than 2; and (v) the agricultural products less than 0G 1; and (v) the agricultural products less than 6; and (v) the agricultural products less than 1; and (v) the agricultural products less than 200 ; and (v) the agricultural products less than 200 ; and (v) the agricultural products less than 200 ; and (v) the agricultural products less than 2007.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant deemed each of the instant farmland as non-business land and denied the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the grounds of farmland substitute land and applied 60% of the heavy tax rate is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.