Seoul Administrative Court 201Gudan3039 ( October 27, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du1554 ( October 29, 2010)

A disposition that applies a heavy tax rate by deeming it an unregistered pre-sale is legitimate.

The reason why it is impossible to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is that the registration for acquisition of farmland cannot be deemed as a case where the execution of the registration procedure is impossible due to the limitation or prohibition of the registration for acquisition of land, and it is anticipated that the registration for transfer of ownership is difficult at the time of acquisition. Therefore,

Article 104 of the Income Tax Act

Article 168 of the Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

2012Nu4649 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax, etc.

KimA

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Gudan3039 decided January 27, 2012

August 30, 2012

September 13, 2012

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 000 on January 11, 2010 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the first instance are reasonable, and are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff also did not obtain the qualification for acquisition of farmland in the appellate court, and the plaintiff could not inevitably complete the registration of ownership transfer under its name. Thus, the land in this case constitutes "property for which the registration of acquisition of assets at the time of transfer is impossible at the time of transfer under the provisions of the Act stipulating the exception of unregistered transferred assets under the proviso of Article 104 (3) of the former Income Tax Act and Article 168 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and even if not, the plaintiff did not do so, since the real estate in this case had no purpose of speculation through unregistered transfer at the time of acquisition of the real estate, the real estate in this case should be excluded from the unregistered transfer assets. However, the reason why the registration of acquisition of acquisition of farmland in this case cannot be viewed as a case where the registration of acquisition of the real estate in this case was restricted or prohibited, and the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a case where it is impossible to implement the registration procedure due to the lack of ownership transfer at the time of acquisition of the land in this case, and the land in this case were expected to be expropriated (6).

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.