Suwon District Court-2016-Gu Group-9460 (2017.08.09)

Whether it is subject to reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for 8 years or longer;

The plaintiff did not recognize the fact of self-sufficiency in the land of this case for more than eight years, and it cannot be deemed that the land of this case constitutes farmland at the time of transfer.

조세특례제한법 제69조자경농지에 대한 양도™"그세의 감면

2017Nu67201 Revocation of disposition of cancelling capital gains tax rectification

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gudan9460 Decided August 9, 2017

December 7, 2017

January 11, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2016, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2016.

The imposition of KRW 000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the following, and thus, it refers to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

Parts to be removed or added.

Article 66(5) of the 19th judgment of the first instance court shall be "Article 66(4)".

○ “The same as the above” in the fourth fifth sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to the following “Acts and subordinate statutes”.

○ The 8thm of the first instance court's decision " alone" is referred to as "entry and video and testimony of the highest AA witness at the appellate court alone".

○ The following shall be added to the fourth decision of the court of first instance No. 14:

According to the images of the evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2, it is difficult to ascertain whether crops are planted on the land in this case, and according to the images of the evidence No. 9-1 through 3, it is possible to confirm that part of the land in this case were planted. However, most of the land in this case appears to be miscellaneous, and the images of evidence No. 10-1 through No. 3 do not take the land in this case, and according to the images of evidence No. 10-4, according to the images of evidence No. 10-4, the land in this case were planted, such as Goguma, etc. at the time of September 18, 2012, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s business income at September 18, 2012 exceeds KRW 37 million per annum.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.