Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for farmland substitute land

Any disposition that excludes capital gains tax reduction or exemption on farmland substitute land by taking the fact that he/she made by proxy the land, and that he/she has not resided in the location of the land, is justifiable.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing KRW 115,964,270 on the Plaintiff on June 16, 2009 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 1999, the Plaintiff acquired a lot of 670 square meters in AAA Dong-dong 702-2, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “previous land”) on July 20, 2006, and transferred it to the Korea National Housing Corporation on the ground of expropriation on July 20, 2006, and acquired a lot of 1,927 square meters in BB-ri 1034 square meters in Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do on December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired a lot of 1,927 square meters in 103 square meters in 1035 square meters in 163 square meters in 1036 square meters in ri, 1036 square meters in ri

B. On June 25, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax on the transfer of previous land, and applied for reduction or exemption on the ground that it constitutes an exemption from transfer income tax on farmland substitute land as stipulated in Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. On June 16, 2009, the Defendant imposed KRW 115,964,270 on the Plaintiff for the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2006, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not move the residence as the location of the instant land and did not directly cultivate the land, and that it did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption of the transfer income tax on the farmland substitute land (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 8, 2009, but on December 11, 2009, the above appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 11-3, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Even after acquiring the previous land, the Plaintiff: (a) acquired the previous land, and (b) did not go around May 2008 at the seat of the previous land; (c) transferred the residence to the seat of the instant land; and (d) did not have to move the address inevitably due to difficulties in the purchase of disease and migrant houses; (b) did not have to request surrogate cultivation; and (c) the Defendant asserts that imposing capital gains tax is illegal without considering the aforementioned inevitable circumstances of the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The purport of Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 67 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20620 of Feb. 22, 2008) is to exempt capital gains tax on the substitute land of farmland, since the acquisition and sale of farmland by self-employed farmer should be limited to the cases where the farmland owned by the self-employed farmer for the purpose of farming is to substitute for the purpose of protecting farmers or promoting the development and growth of agriculture through the free permission and guarantee of substitution of farmland. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the residing and self-employed person should begin within one year from the date of transfer of the previous farmland, unless there are any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5924, Sept. 5, 2003).

(2) However, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land and allowed the Plaintiff to cultivate the instant land on behalf of Nonparty DoD on July 18, 2007; the Plaintiff’s transfer of the resident registration only to the residence of Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, Cheongcheon-gun, the location of the instant land on December 11, 2008, but was returned to the former domicile * Daejeon * 464-16, the former domicile * on December 11, 2008, and did not have resided in the instant land; thus, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the said farmland. Even if the Plaintiff asserted as the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had undergone an operation by de facto color, etc. after the purchase of the instant land, or was difficult to purchase the instant land at the location of the instant land, the requirements for reduction or exemption or analogical interpretation is not permitted without any justifiable reason, and the Plaintiff’s subjective reason for reduction or exemption.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not accept an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax due to the Plaintiff’s farmland substitute land and imposed capital gains tax on the transfer of the previous land on the Plaintiff is lawful

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.