Suwon District Court 201Guhap576 ( October 19, 2011)

Board of Audit and Inspection 201 depth031 ( October 24, 2011)

In the case of co-owned land, it shall be determined whether each co-owner falls under the non-business land

In the case of co-owners of land, whether the land for each co-owner's own share constitutes a non-business land is not different, and other co-owners do not constitute a non-business land due to the transfer of farmland acquired by inheritance within five years, but there is no evidence to recognize the self-employed land as donated by the plaintiff.

2011Nu39266 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

Maximum XX

Head of Si Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap576 Decided October 19, 2011

March 21, 2012

April 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 on October 10, 2009 against the plaintiff on October 10, 200.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as well as Article 8(2) of the same Act.

O. 2. Whether the instant disposition is legitimate or not, among the judgments, paragraph (5) (from the 8th fifth to the 4th day below the same day) is as follows:

(5) Judgment on the fifth argument

Whether farmland falls under non-business land or non-business land is determined depending on whether farmland owner has resided in the location of farmland for a certain period or whether it falls under Article 168-14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. In the case of land co-owners, it is inevitable to change whether farmland falls under non-business land or non-business land according to whether it falls under Article 168-14 (3).

In this case, the shares of the remaining co-owners, other than the plaintiff, are acquired by inheritance under Article 168-14 (3) 4 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618 of Feb. 22, 2008), and are not regarded as land for non-business use. On the other hand, since the plaintiff was donated from femaleB not by inheritance from femaleA but by femaleB, the plaintiff's shares constitute land for non-business use. There is no evidence to support that the plaintiff re-dominateds the relevant part of the shares of this case. The disposition of this case on which capital gains tax was imposed on the land for non-business use is legitimate, and it cannot be viewed as contrary to the legislative intent of the provisions on land for non-business use and the principle of equity.

O In addition, the 12th part of the attached statutes shall be added to the 12th part of the 12th part of this judgment.

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.