Jeju District Court 2010Guhap126 ( November 03, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Da2959 (2010.05)

In light of the aerial photography, etc., it does not constitute a self-farmland of 8 years.

In light of the fact that most of the land has not been found in the aerial photography, the disposition imposed after excluding capital gains tax reduction or exemption is legitimate.

(Disposition) Revocation of revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

XX

O Head of tax office

Jeju District Court Decision 2010Guhap126 Decided November 3, 2010

July 20, 2011

August 10, 2011

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 imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 100,000,000 on the Plaintiff on May 11, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Issues and determination of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Plaintiff, on August 20, 2008, was self-satisfed for not less than eight years from the instant land until the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 00-0 east 4,483 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) in Jeju-do.

As a whole, the first instance court's adopted and examined evidence. (1) In light of the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff started the business of the High Institute of Arts from January 2, 2001, the High Institute of Design from March 19, 2007, and has been operating until now; (ii) the fact that most of the instant land was the site at the time of appraising the instant land around June 28, 2007, and the fact that a vinyl was installed only for parts and was located at this time; and (iii) the airline shooting of each of the instant land on October 6, 2004 and March 29, 206, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was about for more than eight years from the instant land. In light of the above circumstances, the first instance court's determination is justifiable even if the Plaintiff's assertion was supplemented.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

Article 69(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Taxation, Article 66(1)12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9276 of Dec. 29, 2008) and Article 66(1) and (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21214 of Dec. 31, 2008) shall be amended to “Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act,” and Article 66(1) and (12) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21214 of Dec. 31, 2008) of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the conclusion in the reasoning stated in this case. In the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the entry of evidence No. 15 in the judgment of the court of first instance and Article 40(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.