Appellate Court 2013west2796 (Law No. 11, 2013.09)

The disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate because it fails to meet the requirements for re-resident and self-resident for at least eight years.

It is difficult to recognize that a plastic house had reached a living by forming a new basis of living in a plastic house separate from his/her domicile on the resident registration basis, and thus, a disposition imposing capital gains tax is legitimate since it has failed to meet the requirements for re-villages and re

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

2013Gudan23587 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

MaximumO

O Head of tax office

2014.03.05

2014.04.16

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 OOO on March 11, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 19, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired an OOO-Myeon 107 square meters and 2,364 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to 108 square meters and 106 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) from OO-si, O-si, O-si, O-si, and filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption on April 3, 2012 on the premise that it is farmland located in the village and self-employed for at least eight years.

B. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant issued a correction and notification to the Plaintiff on March 11, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not meet the requirements for re-laws and self-reliance for more than eight years.

C. The Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 2-2, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for not less than eight years, while putting in a vinyl in the instant land and its neighboring areas, while residing therein. Therefore, the instant disposition taken on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

갑 2-2, 7-1 내지 7-4, 을 2, 3의 각 기재, 갑 5-1 내지 6-2, 8-1 내지 8-5의 각 영상 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고의 주민등록상 주소지는 1997. 11. 17. 이래 현재까지 이 사건 토지로부터 직선거리 27〜29km 가량 떨어진 OO시 OO구 일원으로서, 원고는 그곳에서 가족들과 실제로 거주한 것으로 보이는 점, 반면 원고가 농번기에 주로 거주하였다고 주장하는 비닐하우스에는 약간의 식기류와 침구류 등이 놓여 있을 뿐이고, 보일러, 수도, 욕실 등 생활에 필수적인 시설은 갖추어져 있지 아니한 점, 이 사건 토지에는 2008. 4. 16.경 비로소 전기가 들어왔는데, 그로부터 2012. 12.경에 이르기까지 전기를 전혀 사용하지 아니한 기간이 통틀어 45개월에 이를 뿐만 아니라, 전력사용량 합계도 52kw에 지나지 않는 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 이 법원에 제출된 증거만으로는 주민등록상 주소지와 별도로, 원고가 위

It is difficult to recognize that a plastic house has reached a "resident" by forming a new basis of life in a plastic house.

Ultimately, the instant disposition taken on the foregoing premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.