early 2011 Middle 2859 ( November 14, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize that farmland has been self-covered for not less than eight years.

In light of the fact that service companies and real estate intermediary businesses have operated real estate intermediary businesses, and the distance from the intermediary businesses to 50 minutes is the distance from which the 50 minutes wide from the farmland is required, it is difficult to recognize the self-defensive fact, and even if the fact of self-defensive fact was recognized for other lands adjacent to the transferred farmland, it cannot be

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2011Gudan3140 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

The AA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 2, 2012

August 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of correction of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2009 against the plaintiff on August 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1996. 4. 10. 남양주시 진접읍 OO리 000 답 1500㎡ 및 같은리 00 답 579㎡，같은 리 000 답 119㎡， 같은 리 00 답 88㎡(이하 '이 사건 농지'라고 한다)를 취득하였고， 2009. 10. 30. 이 사건 농지를 양도하였다.

B. On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff applied Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 10068, Mar. 12, 2010) to the Defendant for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax of KRW 00,000 on the ground that the Plaintiff filed a scheduled return of tax base for capital gains tax on the instant farmland for at least eight years.

C. The Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the farmland of this case for at least eight years, and denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, and deemed that the farmland of this case is land for non-business under Article 104-3 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9785, Jul. 31, 2009); thus, on August 1, 201, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of capital gains tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 2, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on November 14, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiff resided in the location of the instant farmland and directly cultivated the said farmland for at least eight years, capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(2) Among the farmland in this case, the Namyang-si Seoul Metropolitan City was confirmed as one of its own farmland, and the transfer income tax was reduced or exempted on the ground that the special long-term holding deduction was applied to the transfer of land 000 times per Ri, and that the transfer of land 00 times per Ri meets the self-sufficiency requirement of 8 years even when the transfer of land was made at the time of transfer of land 000 times per Ri. In light of these circumstances, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant against the transfer income of the farmland in this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

Pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21807, Nov. 2, 2009), in order for the farmland of this case to be reduced or exempted from capital gains tax, the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate or cultivate the farmland of this case while residing in the Si, Gun, Gun, Gu, or Gu adjacent thereto within 20km in straight line from the farmland of this case, or in the area adjacent thereto, within 1/2 or more of cultivation of crops or perennial plants, i.e., cultivation of crops or perennial plants, and bear the burden of proving such requirements. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff is not able to support the farmland of this case for 0 years or more by 30 years or more, and that there is no specific evidence to support the Plaintiff’s own farmland of this case by 20 years or more, and that there is no other specific method to support the Plaintiff’s own farmland of this case.

[Relation to Voluntary Requisite]

① 원고는 1999. 8 10.부터 2000. 7. 31.까지 서울 용산구 OOO0가 0000 OO빌딩 0층에서 'QQ정보통신'이라는 상호로 음성정보 서비스업체를 운영하였고 2001. 8. 21.부터 2002. 12. 31.까지 남양주시 오남읍 OOO리 000에서 부동산중개사무소를 운영하였으며， 2002. 1. 5.부터 2010. 11. 29.까지 서울 중랑구 OO동 000 OO아파트상가 0000호에서 'OOO정보'라는 상호로 부동산중개업(이하 '이 사건 부동산중개업'이라고 한다)을 운영해 온 점

② 원고는 위 QQ정보통신의 운영에 직접 참여한 적은 없고 단지 명의만 빌려 주었다고 주장하나， 이에 부합하는 증거를 제시하지 못하고 있고， 원고의 배우자인 박RR 역시 1997. 10. 1.부터 2004. 1. 27.까지 서울 용산구 OOOO0가 00 OO빌딩 0층에서 'QQ정보통신'이라는 상호로 음성정보 서비스업체를 운영한 것으로 나타난 점

③ In operating the real estate brokerage business of this case, the Plaintiff calculated the sales of KRW 000 in 2004, KRW 000 in 2005, and KRW 000 in 2006, and KRW 000 in 2007 in 2007, and KRW 000 in 2008 in 2009 (the Plaintiff did not indicate the number of employees related to the operation of the real estate brokerage business of this case and the lease relationship in the workplace).

(4) If it is merely an indirect management of agriculture with concentrate on other occupation, it is difficult to regard it as an "self-competitive competition" as stipulated in Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

⑤ The Plaintiff’s distance from the real estate brokerage office of this case is about 24 km, and about 50 km when the Plaintiff moves into a vehicle (the result of the NAV map search)

(6) Although the Plaintiff asserted that the instant farmland was self-fashed while operating the instant real estate brokerage business, in light of the sales amount of the instant real estate brokerage business and the distance from the instant farmland from the real estate brokerage business office, it is difficult to readily believe the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

7) The Plaintiff did not present any objective evidence related to the disposal of crops cultivated in the farmland of this case

[Relation to Residential Requirements]

① From November 5, 1986, the Plaintiff’s spouse resided with the same place as the Plaintiff and transferred his resident registration to the PP apartment located in the Seoul Jung-gu Odong from August 21, 2002 (the Plaintiff was operating the real estate brokerage business from January 5, 2002; the Plaintiff’s spouse transferred his resident registration to the PP apartment on August 21, 2002).

② The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s spouse have a resident registration in a different place, and there is no special reason to live differently.

③ The Plaintiff’s land size is 696 square meters, which is 000 square meters in South-Nam-Eup, Nam-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s resident registration, and the Plaintiff’s construction site is 198.75 square meters in each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) and the construction site is located in each of the following areas: (a) Red TT is operating a business under the trade name of “OOOOOO” from July 1, 201 to October 4, 2002.

④ 원고는 2010. 4. 10. 김SS에게 임대목적물을 '남양주시 오남읍 OO리 000 대지 694㎡，건물 벽돌블럭조의 주거용 및 근린생활시설 198m 로， 보증금을 000원으로， 월 차임을 000원으로 각 정하여 임대하기로 하는 내용의 임대차계 약을 체결한 점(원고는 이 사건 건물이 사업장 부분과 주택 부분으로 구분되어 있고 사업장 부분에 한하여 김SS에게 임대해 주었다고 주장하나， 원고와 김SS은 주택 부분과 사업장 부분을 구분하지 아니하고 이 사건 건물 전체를 임대목적물로 하여 임 대차계약을 체결한 것으로 보인다)

(2) Judgment on the second argument

According to the overall purport of the entries and arguments, and each entry and evidence Nos. 22, 27, and 29 (including household numbers), Namyang-si decided as farmland subject to disposal, and as a result of the investigation upon the plaintiff's objection, it is recognized that the farmland subject to disposal was cancelled on April 12, 199, and the land Nos. 000 on July 23, 2003 was established on July 23, 2003 because of the acquisition of public land, the ownership transfer registration was made on the land at Gyeonggi-do, and that there was no more reliable view that there was a value equivalent to the transfer income tax for public interest than that of the above land at issue, and that there was no value equivalent to the transfer income tax more than that of the above land at issue than that of the above land at issue, and that there was no value equivalent to the transfer income tax more than that of the above land at issue than that of the previous public land at issue, and that there was no value equivalent to the transfer income tax at issue.

3. Conclusion

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