Review Transfer 2009-0101 (2009.08)

Whether donated farmland constitutes non-business land

Since the resident registration is not made in the Si/Gun/Gu or Si/Gun adjacent thereto identical to the location of farmland, it does not meet the requirements for re- village, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff cultivated the instant land, and thus, it falls under the land for non-business use.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

"Cancellation of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 70,352,560 against the plaintiff on October 20, 2008 by the defendant" (the "written complaint of October 22, 2008" is the "written complaint of October 20, 2008").

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2000, the Plaintiff, the father of the Plaintiff, was divided into KRW 303-3/1,398 square meters of the △△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “△△△”) and KRW 303-3/3/1,398 square meters of the [1 square meters of 303-3/3/300 and 303-6/1,397 square meters of the △△△△△△○,” which were divided into KRW 304-3/3/2,57 square meters of the [304-3/300 and 304/300 of the land] and KRW 304-3/3/2,575 square meters of the [14/207] and the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 14, 2007 with KRW 304-9/2,574 square meters of the [303-30/300/30 of the instant land];

나, 원고는 2007. 6. 15. 이 사건 토지를 '중부권 복합화물터미널 및 내륙컨테이너기지 민간투자시설사업'의 사업시행자인 ★★ 주식회사{이하 '★★'라 한다)에게 공공용지 협의취득절차에 따라 양도하였다

C. On the premise that the transfer of the instant land by the Plaintiff on May 31, 2008 is a transfer of the general land under Article 94(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Income Tax Act”), the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant 45,571,125 won of the capital gains tax calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 104(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act, and paid it.

D. From August 4, 2008 to August 12, 2008, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation in relation to the above report of capital gains tax. As a result, the instant land constitutes land under Article 104-3 (1) 1(a) of the former Income Tax Act, Article 68-8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and Article 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20618, Feb. 22, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act”), based on the determination that the tax rate under Article 04 (1) 2-7 of the former Income Tax Act is applied, and the tax rate under Article 04 (1) 2-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was applied to the Defendant on October 20, 2008, imposing KRW 70,352,560 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an objection against it with the Defendant, but the Defendant rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on April 16, 2009, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on June 9, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence l to 4, and Eul evidence 7 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's principal

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s disposal of the instant land was unlawful by regarding the instant land as land for non-business use, not the land for non-business use.

According to Article 4-3 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act, and Article 168-8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, farmland excluding farmland (self-requirements) in which a person who has registered as a resident and actually resides in an area located within 20 kilometers in a straight line from the neighboring Si/Gun/Gu or farmland within the boundary of 20 kilometers in a straight line as farmland location falls under "non-business land".

From November 28, 2000, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the Plaintiff is residing in the ○○○○○-dong apartment located in the △○○○○-dong located in the △○○○○○-dong from November 28, 200 to the present date. ○○○-dong does not correspond to the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the same Si/Gun/Gu as the Si/Gun/Gu located in the instant land, but it is located within 20 kilometers in a straight line from the instant land because the ○○○-dong located in the ○○-dong located in the ○○○-dong located within the ○○○-dong

Although the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case, according to Article 164-14 (3) 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, the land cultivated by the lineal ascendant is not considered as the land for non-business use with respect to the land donated by the relevant lineal ascendant. However, the Plaintiff was donated the land of this case, which was self-employed by the father, by the YA, from A. Therefore, the requirements for self-reliance are also satisfied.

B. Related Acts

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(i)in the case of this case the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

A) As seen earlier, under the premise that Articles 168-8(2) and 168-14(3)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act apply to this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the land in this case is illegal since the Defendant determined that the land in this case is land for non-business use, although it does not fall under the land for non-business use.

B) However, for the following reasons, Articles 168-8(2) and 168-14(3)1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act do not apply to this case, and Article 168-6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act applies to this case.

。 재촌요건과 관련하여, 구 소득세법 시행령 제168조의8 제2항은 '농지의 소재지와 동일한 사 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구 또는 그와 연접한 시 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구 안의 지역에 주민등록이 되어 있고 사실상 거주'하여야 한다고 규정하고 있었는데, 2008, 2. 22 대통령령 제20618호로 소득세법 시행령이 개정되면서, '농지의 소재지와 동일한 시 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구, 연접한 시 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구 또는 농지로부터 직선거리 20킬로미터 이내에 있는 지역에 주민등록이 되어 있고 사실상 거주'하면 족한 것으로 재촌요건이 완화되기는 하였으나(소득세법 시행령 제 168조의8 제2항), 위 개정 당시의 소득세법 시행령 부칙 제1조, 제3조에 의하면, 위 개정된 소득세법 시행령 규정은 공포한 날인 2008. 2. 22부터 시행되고, 위 소득세법 시 행령의 시행 후 최초로 자산을 양도하는 분부터 적용되므로, 원고가 2007. 6. 15 에 이 사건 토지를 ★★에 양도한 이 사건에 있어서는, 개정된 소득세법 시행령 제 168조의8 제2항이 적용되지 않는다.

。 자경요건과 관련하여, 소득세법 시행령이 2008. 12. 31 대통령령 제21195호로 개정되면서, '직계존속이 8년 이상 토지소재지에 거주하면서 직접 경작한 농지'를 '해당 직계존속으로부터 증여받은 자'가 양도하는 경우도 양도인이 자경한 경우와 같이 보아 비사업용 토지로 보지 않는다는 내용의 규정이 추가되었는데(소득세법 시행령 제168조 의14 제3항 제1의2호), 위 개정 당시의 소득세법 시행령 부칙 제1조, 제4조에 의하여, 개정된 소득세법 시행령 제168조의14 제3항의 개정규정은 위 소득세법 시행령의 시행일인 2008. 12. 31.이 속하는 과세연도에 양도하는 분부터 적용되므로, 결국 원고가 2007. 6. 15.에 이 사건 토지를 ★★에 양도한 이 사건에 있어서는, 개정된 소득세법 시행령 제168조의14 제3항 제1의2호는 적용되지 않는다.

The reason behind the amendment of Article 168-8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act to Article 168-8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and the newly established Article 168-14 (3) 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is that it is unreasonable to determine the requirements of re- village on the basis of the same or adjacent farmland of the owner’s residence and the distance between the farmland owned by the owner, and to regard the case where a lineal descendant was donated with farmland owned by his lineal ascendant as a lineal descendant as a result of the same or adjacent farmland of his own domicile differently from that of his lineal descendant, and it is unreasonable to regard the case where the purpose of tax evasion is not recognized. Thus, in this case where the purpose of tax evasion by the Plaintiff is not recognized, Article 168-8 (2) and Article 168-14 (3) 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be applied, but the interpretation of the tax law shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring special circumstances (see, e.

2) Whether the land of this case does not constitute non-business land

이 사건의 경우, 재촌요건은 구 소득세법 시행령 제168조의8 제2항에 의하여, 자경요건은 원고가 이 사건 토지를 자경하고 있는지 여부에 의하여 각 판단되어야 할 것인데, 원고는 2000년경부터 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 908 ☆☆아파트 219동 1205호에 주민등록이 되어 있었던 사실, 이 사건 토지 소재지인 충청남도 △△군과 ○○ ○○구 사이에는 ○○ ☐☐구가 위치하고 있는 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없는바, 결국 원고는 '농지의 소재지와 동일한 시 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구 또는 그와 연접한 시 ㆍ 군 ㆍ 구'에 주민등록이 되어있는 자가 아니어서 재촌요건을 충족하지 못하며, 원고가 이 사건 토지를 경작하였음을 인정할만한 증거도 없어 자경요건도 충족하지 못하므로, 이 사건 토지는 구 소 득세법이 규정하는 비사업용 토지에 해당된다.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disposition of this case rendered on the premise that the land of this case is land for non-business use is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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