early 2013 Middle 2546 ( August 12, 2013)

Any disposition that exclusion from reduction or exemption is deemed to have not been made for not less than eight years shall be justified.

In light of the fact that the apartment house in the speculative area is exempted from taxation as one house for one household, and that the apartment house is seen to have been residing in the above apartment house, and that the airline house does not seem to have been used as farmland, it is difficult to recognize that the apartment house was self-employed for not less than eight years.

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

District Court 2013Gudan15345

○ ○

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

August 25, 2014

October 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 187,233,700 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 1, 1985, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 4,731 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○-5, and transferred on January 29, 2010, and on March 30, 2010, the Plaintiff applied Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act to the Defendant for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax by applying Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s scheduled return of the tax base of capital gains tax on the instant land

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland for at least eight (8) years; (b) denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding; and (c) subsequently, on October 17, 2012, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 187,233,700 of capital gains tax reverted to the Plaintiff in 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff continued to reside in a neighboring house of the instant land and directly cultivated the instant land for not less than 8 years, and thus, the transfer income tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is reduced or exempted and the special deduction for long-term holding under the Income Tax Act is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, in order to be subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the Plaintiff shall directly cultivate the instant land while residing in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the Si/Gun/Gu where the instant land was located for at least eight years after the Plaintiff acquired, or in an area within 20 km in a straight line from the relevant farmland, and directly cultivate crops or perennial plants, or cultivate or cultivate at least 1/2 of crops or perennial plants with his own labor, and bear the burden of proof for such requirements.

(2) We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to each image of No. 2, No. 2, and No. 5 and No. 6 (including virtual numbers), i.e., the Plaintiff’s resident registration address: (i) there were 398 or 414 persons in Gyeonggi-do ○○○-gun, ○○-gun, during the holding period of the instant land; (ii) there was no confirmation of the copy of the building register and the building ledger; and (iii) 414 persons were residing in Kim○-○ from 192; and (iv) the Plaintiff did not appear to be exempt from the transfer income tax for 15 years from January 18, 198 to December 28, 2006, considering that there were no other evidentiary materials related to the farmland of this case including the farmland of this case from 20 years to 30 years from 20 years from 190 to 26 years from 208.186.

3. Conclusion

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