early 201Gu5020 (Ob. 29, 2012)

It is difficult to see that the farmland was actually resided in the previous farmland area, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the farmland was self-sufficient.

Although the previous farmland was moved to the seat of the previous farmland for the period of self-reliance, the relocated house was owned by the owner of the house, but it was difficult to regard that the rent was actually resided in the previous farmland because there was no cooking facility and there was no fact that the rent was paid for one month other than the rent, and it is difficult to recognize the fact that the substitute farmland was self-sufficient.

Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2012Guhap1237 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax

KimA

Head of Namgu Tax Office

July 20, 2012

August 29, 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 to the Plaintiff on August 9, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 11, 1992, the Plaintiff acquired and owned a 4,579 square meter (hereinafter “previous farmland”) prior to 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. On September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired 000 square meters in total, 1,969 square meters in the number of 00 square meters in OOri-ri 000 square meters in Daegu, and 1,617 square meters in 00; (b) acquired 887 square meters in Ori-ri 000 square meters in the Gu, Daegu-gun, Daegu-si on October 1, 2009; (c) filed a final return of capital gains tax on July 5, 2010; (d) calculated capital gains tax on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a return on the final return of capital gains tax on the previous farmland with the Defendant on July 3, 2010, and paid capital gains tax under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1113, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as “former Special Taxation Act”) and calculated capital gains tax on the Defendant.

C. On August 9, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not reside in the location of the previous farmland, and that the Plaintiff did not own the second farmland, and excluded the application of capital gains tax reduction and exemption regulations, and corrected and imposed capital gains tax of 000 won to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 9, 201, but was dismissed on February 28, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence, 19 evidence 1, 2, and 1 evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The plaintiff, for three years from April 25, 2007 to June 7, 2010, had resided in the 2 column of the building located in OF owned in 000 of the building located in the 2ndtopland without the plaintiff's permission, while GG used the 2ndtop farmland in the 2ndtopland without the plaintiff's permission, even though the plaintiff managed the 1st to manage the 2ndtop, and the plaintiff cultivated the 2ndtop farmland directly from the 2nd to the 2ndtop farmland.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. The principle of strict interpretation derived from the principle of no taxation without the law is applicable not only to cases meeting the taxation requirements, but also to cases meeting the requirements for non-taxation and tax reduction or exemption, and it should not be permitted as it extends interpretation or analogical interpretation without any justifiable reason, which is contrary to the basic principles of tax law, i.e., the basic principles of tax law (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19163, May 25, 2006). Article 70(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 67(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Jun. 3, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act"), and Article 67(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 67(3) and (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, where a person who directly cultivated farmland for three years or more than three years has transferred the newly acquired farmland.

B. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit because there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff has resided in the previous farmland by considering the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments in the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, and evidence Nos. 7 through 10-4, and evidence Nos. 2 through 12, and evidence Nos. 20-1 through 26 are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff has resided in the previous farmland.

(1) The Plaintiff resided in O00, Seogu, Daegu-gu OF, and transferred his resident registration from April 25, 2007 to June 7, 2010, which was the seat of the previous farmland, to 00, the period from June 25, 2010. The above house continues to have been residing after April 15, 1987 by the size FF, the owner of which was the owner of the house. The Plaintiff did not have any facilities for cooking or cooking, as well as one room, in the above bonds, and in the above bonds, there was only one room and one kitchen.

(2) In the event that the Plaintiff received KRW 100,00 from the Plaintiff as the monthly rent, but later did not receive the rent, and around February 2010, 10, 2010, she did not have a person who resides in a separate debt even when the GF’s leK took a single measure against the Plaintiff’s leK.

(3) On October 18, 2007 and November 19, 2007, when the plaintiff couple resided in the house of 000 OOdong 000, the tenant was transferred to the tenant on October 18, 2007 and November 19, 2007, and thereafter, the plaintiff couple seems unable to reside in the above domicile. However, the unmarried Kim H, an unmarried child of the plaintiff couple, owned the detached house in 00 OOdong-dong 00, Daegu, while GH transferred the resident registration to the above detached house on November 9, 207.

C. Even if the Plaintiff actually resided in the place of the previous farmland during his own cultivation period, considering the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 2 and 3, and 8, and 10-1 and 2, and the overall purport of the arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the second farmland, and that in 2011, it is recognized that the non-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-im.

5. Conclusion

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