8년 이상 자경한 것으로 인정하기 어려움[국승]
early 2011west 1921 (No. 22, 2011)
It is difficult to recognize as being a serious one for not less than eight years.
In light of the fact that a director of a corporation has earned a considerable amount of earned income as a director of another business, it is difficult to recognize that a person has been self-employed for not less than eight years in light of the fact that other farmland than transferred farmland is considerably owned and its size exceeds a considerable degree, is engaged in other occupations, and the labor force such as leisure time is difficult to cultivate farmland directly.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2011Gudan26483 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
XX
Director of the District Office
May 22, 2012
June 19, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 8, 2011 is revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 15, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 00-0 m222, XX Dong-dong 00-0 m2,066 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred on October 6, 2009.
B. On October 6, 2009, the Plaintiff applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) while the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years.
C. However, on February 8, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant land for at least eight years, and determined and notified KRW 000 of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence of Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), 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 at least eight years by purchasing a fertilizer, compost, seed, etc., as the actual cultivation area of the instant land is less than 150 square meters, and it is possible to cultivate the instant land by using leisure time, as it does not require a full-time operation of labor by cultivating a drilling, drilling, etc. in that area, and by purchasing a fertilizer, compost, or seed. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff reported differently is unlawful even if it satisfies the self-defense requirement.
Do. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
(c) Fact of recognition;
(1) Plaintiff’s business, etc.
(A) The Plaintiff is a director of (main) OO of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu OO, 000-0, who owns 2,500 shares out of 10,000 shares, and was earned income from 00 won to 000 won each year from 1998 to 2009.
(B) On January 23, 2009, the Plaintiff, on January 23, 2009, engaged in the study and good offices in China in the name of "YY A 000-0 A 000, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, and closed the business around February 2010." (2) The farmland ledger, etc.
(A) On the farmland ledger drawn up on April 19, 2007 against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is recorded as a farmer, and it is entered as a "self-arable" as a type of cultivation.
(B) In the farmland ownership status of the above farmland ledger, the Plaintiff also owns not only the instant land, but also < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17502, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17502, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17504, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17588, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17568, Feb. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17558, Feb. 29
(3) The Plaintiff also acquired on February 15, 2001, and transferred on May 2, 2005, the land of this case and each of the above farmland, other than the land of this case, and the land of this case, 1,235 square meters of the XX-dong 00-0.
[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 12, 16, 17 (including each natural disaster), Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, part of witness lecture testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
D. Determination
Under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 66(1) and (13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, a transferor shall live in a Si/Gun/Gu where the land is located or a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent thereto, and directly cultivate the relevant farmland for not less than eight years from the time he/she acquired the relevant farmland until the time he/she transfers it. On the other hand, a "direct cultivation" means that the transferor engages in cultivating the crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor.
In this case, as to whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax, the health stand, and the above facts revealed, the Plaintiff’s land in this case is growing to the farmland ledger, and some of the data that the Plaintiff purchased fertilizers, composts, seeds, etc. are submitted. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (i) the Plaintiff was a director of the (O)O; (ii) the Plaintiff was engaged in other study arrangement around 2009; (iii) the Plaintiff owns farmland other than this case’s land; and (iv) the Plaintiff directly cultivates each farmland in the farmland ledger; (iv) the size of the land in this case is considerably significant; and (v) the farmland ledger states that the Plaintiff has been directly cultivated each farmland; (iv) the Plaintiff has earned other wage and salary income; and (v) the labor force, such as leisure time, etc. in the farmland ledger appears to be difficult to directly cultivate each of the above farmland; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land in this case for at least eight years.
E. Sub-committee
Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to meet the requirements for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax, the instant disposition that the Plaintiff reported as such is lawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.