early 209 middle 4202 (201.02.01)

Reduction of or exemption from capital gains tax for self-farmland for 8 years;

It is difficult to believe that the assertion that the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the affairs of certified judicial scrivener in Seoul, was self-sufficient in farmland located in the long distance.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 107,627,210 for the Plaintiff on September 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred 1/2 of the share of CC 492-1 1,640 square meters prior to 492-1, and 492-2 1,378 square meters of the same Ri (hereinafter “each land of this case”) to Namcheon-do, which was acquired on May 31, 198, and filed an application for reduction of capital gains tax under Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act with respect to each land of this case on December 1, 2008.

B. On June 15, 2009, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation to the effect that the Plaintiff would deny the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption on each of the instant land for at least eight years and determine each of the instant land as idle business, and that the Plaintiff would notify the Plaintiff of KRW 304,309,093 of the transfer income tax for the year 2008.

C. On July 20, 2009, the plaintiff appealed and filed a request for pre-assessment review with the defendant on July 20, 2009. On August 19, 2009, the defendant decided to consider the time of acquisition of each land of this case as the date of acquisition of each land of this case on May 31, 1985 and to not accept the other claim. Accordingly, on September 5, 2009, the defendant imposed capital gains tax of 107,627,210 won to the plaintiff on September 5, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the Tax Tribunal on November 30, 2009. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on February 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 5 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while operating a certified judicial scrivener office in Seoul, was from 192 to the time of transfer of each of the instant lands from 1992 to the time of transfer, especially since 1994, cultivated each of the instant lands with the aid of his family members and neighbors for not less than 8 years, and thus, the instant disposition that denied the Plaintiff’s application for reduction or exemption of self-sufficiency for

(b) The attached Form of relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Determination

In full view of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037 of Feb. 18, 2010), in cases where a resident living in an area within a Si/Gun/Gu where farmland is located or in an area in a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto for not less than eight years has cultivated himself/herself for not less than eight years from the time he/she acquired the farmland and the time he/she transferred the farmland, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax on the income accruing from the transfer of the land shall be reduced and exempted. The requirements for such reduction and exemption provisions shall be proved by the Plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land from around 1992 to the time of the transfer of the instant land by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land from around 1992, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land from around February 7, 192, namely, the Plaintiff is operating a certified judicial scrivener office in Seoul from February 7, 192 to the point of being recorded in the farmland ledger (No. 19). According to the farmland ledger (No. 19), the land written by the Plaintiff, including the instant land, is very wide of at least 20,00 square meters, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, who is a certified judicial scrivener, was unable to submit an agrochemical or fertilizer purchase, which appears to have been necessary for the Plaintiff to cultivate the instant land directly from around 192 to the time of the transfer of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land from around 192.

3. Conclusion

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