High Court 2014 Mine4582 (O6, 2015)

Since the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the land in this case, the Defendant’s disposition denying the reduction or exemption by the self-definite around 8 years is legitimate.

Since the fact of the transfer of land, which is the requirement for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, has the burden of proof against the transferor who asserts it, it is difficult to prove the fact of the transfer only by the plaintiff's assertion in this case where the substitute lessee has cultivated

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

Jeonju District Court-2015-Gu Group-950 ( October 12, 2016)

leAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

2016.09.07

oly 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of correction of KRW 181,776,130 for the transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff in December 26, 2013 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant on December 26, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 13, 1995, the Plaintiff acquired PP-O O-O 3967 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred 840 million won to other 6,000,000 won. B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was self-filled from around 1996 to around 2003, and that the special long-term possession deduction amounted to 146,502,040 won, and the special long-term possession deduction amounted to 105,048,475 won under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Defendant rejected the application of reduction or exemption to self-owned land on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to meet the self-employed requirements for 8 years or more, and rejected the instant application of the capital gains tax on the instant land by deeming that the instant land fell under the special non-business deduction for 2016.16.21.61.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not own the land of this case for 8 years from 1996 to 2003, and the prior disposition of this case on different premise should be revoked as illegal.

B. Determination

The fact of the transfer of land, which is the requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, has the burden of proof against the transferor who asserts the transfer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, the tax authority bears the burden of proving that the transfer of land, which is the requirement for non-business land excluded from special deduction for long-term care, is not self-sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 3

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

testimony of EO for the testimony of EO for the purposes of this case in the statement of Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

In full view of all, the Plaintiff from around 1996 to around 1998, and 2O around 199.

O, from around 2000 to around 2011, EO, and 2 XX from around 2012

The fact that the land was leased and cultivated shall be sufficiently recognized, and evidence A 6 to 23 shall be proved.

(including each number) Each statement is difficult to believe, or vice versa.

shall be adequate and otherwise there shall be no reflective evidence.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.