Jeju District Court 2013Guhap73 (2014.02.05)

Since the transfer income tax is not recognized for 8 years or longer, it is legitimate to impose transfer income tax.

The burden of proof for "direct cultivation" is imposed on the person liable for tax payment, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff directly cultivated the key land for not less than eight years, and since the actual transaction price at the time of acquisition of the key land cannot be confirmed at the time of acquisition, the transfer income tax is imposed by calculating the conversion price as acquisition price.

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

(Disposition) Revocation of a disposition to impose capital gains tax;

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Jeju District Court Decision 2013Guhap73 Decided February 5, 2014

July 9, 2014

August 20, 2014

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 defendant's disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 57,506,151 against the plaintiff on December 5, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) both the 4th and 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance and the 6th and 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are deleted; and (b) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance except for amendments as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

○ The phrase “before it was amended by Act No. 10310, May 25, 2010” in the second instance judgment No. 17 of the second instance judgment shall be read as “before it was amended by Act No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010.”

○ 3. The Plaintiff added “(5)” between the 13th and 14th, and added “the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial on February 7, 2013, which was the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit.”

○ “No. 10” is added to “No. 14” column.

○ Prior to the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 22356, Aug. 25, 2010, of the fourth 13-14, to “before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012”

○ Each entry “each entry” of Section 12 of the 5th page includes “A’s evidence 11 and 12 and the testimony of the first instance trial witness CC.”

○ In cases where “ February 28, 2007.” was changed from February 8, 2007 to “ February 8, 2007.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.