Incheon District Court 2008Gudan430 (No. 25, 2008)

Examination Transfer 2007-0128 ( December 13, 2007)

Appropriateness of the disposition that excluded the tax reduction or exemption by deeming it to meet the requirements for re-villages for at least eight years;

In light of the fact that it appears that the plaintiff had resided in a container stuff but did not use a small amount of electricity or any other power, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff actually re-established the period that the plaintiff had resided in Seoul with his resident registration.

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

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

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 100 million won for the Plaintiff on June 5, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation concerning the instant case is identical to the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachmentcheon District Court 2008Gudan430, 25 July 2008]

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 100 million on June 5, 2007 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On October 29, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired the same Ri 65-2 ○○○, Kimpo-si, ○○○, 665-2 5,583 square meters, and transferred the same Ri 655-3 1,020 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Korea ○○○○, a limited company on October 25, 2006.

B. On November 6, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer difference based on the standard market price for the instant land on the ground that the instant land constitutes farmland with a self-major of not less than eight years, and deducted the amount of capital gains tax reduced or exempted for not less than eight years, and reported and paid KRW 8,202,350 for the capital gains tax corresponding to the year 2006.

C. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for re-laws for not less than eight years; (b) excluded the Plaintiff from the application for reduction; and (c) notified the Plaintiff that he would rectify and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 100 million of transfer income tax belonging to the year 2006.

D. The plaintiff was examined as to the legality of the pre-taxation, but the defendant made a "non-adopted decision" on May 8, 2007, and notified the plaintiff of the above decision on May 11, 2007, and on June 5, 2007, the plaintiff corrected and notified KRW 100 million of transfer income tax for the year 2006 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. On June 14, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. On December 14, 2007, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request for examination and notified the Plaintiff thereof. The Plaintiff was served on December 18, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, and Eul 1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff acquired on October 29, 1993 and resided in the Plaintiff’s own land for not less than eight years until October 25, 2006, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant land was unlawful since the Plaintiff resided in the Plaintiff’s own farmland for not less than eight years. From July 27, 2002 to November 18, 2004, the Plaintiff resided in the Plaintiff’s residential area for not less than 8 years from November 19 to 21, 2006, while residing in the Plaintiff’s residential area for not less than four years in total, from 00 to 8,00,00,000 to 8,00,000,000,000 from 30 to 6,000,000,000,000 to 7,000,000,000 from 2,000,000 to 7,000,000.

(b) Related statutes;

(Reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland)

The Gu (Reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for self-Cultivating farmland)

C. Determination

(1) In order to be eligible for the exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to the provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff shall reside in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu where the land of this case is located for at least eight years after the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "requirements for village") and (2) the Plaintiff shall reside in the area within the Si/Gun/Gu where the land of this case is located for at least eight years (hereinafter referred to as "requirements for village"), and the burden of proof for such requirements shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(2) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for re-laws.

(A) The resident status of the plaintiff appearing in the public record such as resident registration does not conflict between the parties as follows, or can be recognized by each entry of Gap 5, 6, and Eul 2, and there is no counter-proof.

-on January 15, 1993: Transfer to ○○○○ 634 on January 15, 1993

On October 31, 1994, after ex officio transfer without permission, re-registered on November 7, 1994

on November 10, 1994: ○○○○○ 307 transferred to Kimpo-gun, Kimpo-gun.

-on July 28, 1995: Transfer to 193, Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○-dong 193

- On June 23, 1997: the transfer of ○○○○, 442 ○○ apartment 101 Dong 404

-The transfer on May 9, 200 to 141-204 of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○-dong 141-204

-on July 13, 2001: Transfer to ○○-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 316-271 ○○-a01 B-101

- July 27, 2002: Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu ○○○, 580 ○ apartment 205 Dong 1006

on November 19, 2004: ○○○○○○ 655-2 transferred in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si

(B) According to the above facts, during the period from October 29, 1993 to October 25, 2006 when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the period during which the Plaintiff appears to have resided in the Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto as a resident registration from October 29, 193 to October 25, 2006, falls short of the requirements for re-laws for not less than eight years, including the period from October 29, 1993 to October 31, 1994; the period from November 7, 1994 to July 27, 1995; and the period from July 27, 2002 to October 25, 2006 (In Incheon and Kimpo).

(C) On the other hand, the Plaintiff appears to have resided in 0.2 of July 28, 195 to July 26, 202 at 0-1 of 20-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 0-2 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 0-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 0-2 of 2-1 of 3-1 of 2-1 of 20-1 of 2-1 of 2-1 of 3-1 of 2 of 3-1 of 2.

Therefore, in transferring the land of this case, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for re-laws for not less than eight years subject to exemption from capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Therefore, the land of this case cannot be deemed to fall under self-Governing farmland subject to exemption from income tax without relation to whether it satisfies the requirements for self-defense. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.