가족과 협업에 의하여 자경한 경우 8년 자경 감면을 인정할 수 있는지 여부[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2009Gudan3432 (No. 23, 2009)
Cho High Court Decision 2008Do1978 ( December 11, 2008)
Whether the reduction or exemption for eight years can be recognized in cases of self-satisfying by collaboration with his/her family;
Although a person did not reside at the location of farmland at the time of transfer of farmland, he/she had resided in the location of farmland for at least eight years after acquiring farmland while living together with his/her family at the location of farmland, and has been engaged in cultivating rice, etc. at all times for at least eight years, and thus, the relevant farmland
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 63,073,720 on the Plaintiff on March 5, 2008 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.
1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable, and thus, are cited as the reasons for the judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the judgment of the defendant as the priority in the appellate trial is added as follows
2. The core of the grounds for appeal of this case alleged by the Defendant stated that the meaning of "direct cultivation" in Article 66 (12) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19463, Apr. 28, 2006; hereinafter the same applies) refers to "a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land at all times or in cultivating or growing them with his own labor not less than half of them with respect to not only the direct materials that the Plaintiff cultivated with his parents for not less than eight years, but also the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have cultivated the farmland of this case directly since there is no objective material to support the cultivation of the farmland of this case, such as the Plaintiff's labor input with their parents, the farmland ledger, receipt for purchase of fertilizers and agricultural chemicals, and materials for disposal of harvested materials.
However, at around February 20, 1976, the Plaintiff started from the time of acquiring the farmland of this case to the time of middle and high schools, and even thereafter, it is recognized that the Plaintiff got a farming house from the farmland of this case to the time of Seoul around March 1989 (the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7 of this case, witness Han-H's testimony, and oral argument in the farmland of this case). According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have been continuously engaged in the cultivation of crops, such as rice shed, etc. in the farmland of this case owned by his parent, and thus, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of direct cultivation as provided for in the above Enforcement Decree. The Defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is with this conclusion. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.