8년 이상 농작업의 1/2 이상을 자기 노동력으로 경작하였다고 인정하기 어려움[국승]
Early High Court Decision 201Du1724, 201107.14
It is difficult to recognize that he/she has cultivated at least 1/2 of farming works with his/her own labor for at least eight years.
In light of the fact that it is difficult to recognize that farmland had cultivated 1/2 or more of the farming work with its own labor for not less than eight years in light of the fact that it is difficult to recognize that the company had engaged in the farming work concurrently while working in the company on a regular basis because the size of farmland is small and considerably far away from the living base, such as workplace
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act
2011Guhap12178 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Park AA
Head of Central Tax Office
March 30, 2012
April 27, 2012
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 of KRW 000 for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2010 is revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 1, 1984, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 000 OO-Eup O00 Ma6,565 m2 (hereinafter “the instant farmland”) and transferred 000 won to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on December 31, 2009 due to the acquisition of consultation on public land.
B. On February 2010, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax pursuant to the transfer of the farmland in this case with the Defendant, and the farmland in this case constitutes “farmland directly cultivated for at least eight years” under Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 9921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Special Taxation Restriction Act”), and filed an application for reduction of KRW 000 in accordance with the ceiling of capital gains tax reduction by taxable period.
C. However, on October 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 00 (including additional tax) of the transfer income tax for the year 2009 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not own the instant farmland for at least eight years as a result of the field investigation of the transfer income tax, and that the application of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was excluded, and that the reduction and exemption provision for land for public services under Article 77 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was applied (hereinafter
D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on February 15, 201 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 4, 2011, but was dismissed on July 14, 201.
[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
On June 1, 1984, the Plaintiff cultivated directly from 2001 to 2001, and thereafter leased farmland to others. The Plaintiff’s residence and the farmland in this case are close to 13-14 km in a straight line, and the Plaintiff was sufficiently enough time to work as a farmer until he retires from the Khap Island in 1998, and in light of the circumstances such as receiving direct payments for preserving rice income, etc. and purchasing agricultural materials, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on different premise is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.
C. Determination
(1) A taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on the fact that he/she directly cultivated the transferred land for at least eight years as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on his/her own farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 194).
(2) According to the statements in Gap's 4, 16, 18, and 24, the plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case, and the plaintiff continued to reside in the king-si, adjacent to the location within the period from July 19, 1984 after acquiring the farmland of this case, and with respect to the farmland of this case, the farmland of this case was first prepared on August 8, 2005, stating that the plaintiff owned the farmland of this case as a farmer with the plaintiff's wife and Ihh as a self-employed member, and the plaintiff was registered as a person eligible for direct payments for the farmland of this case from 2005 to 2007, and received direct payments, and the family register prepared by the plaintiff's wife of this case ( March 13, 1992) includes "OOM value" of 13.00. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13583, Mar. 13, 1992>
(3) On the other hand, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, and 3, the plaintiff was employed as a production worker in the KKK Island around January 1971, and the plaintiff was employed as an apartment security guard from January 1998, and the plaintiff was first transferred to Sinsi-si in Gyeonggi-do on May 9, 1980, and around three months from April 17, 1984 to July 19, 1984, when the plaintiff was registered as a resident in the domicile of OU 00 in the vicinity of the farmland of this case, for the other other period, and the other period, after the movement of KK Island and the other place of residence in the Dong Dong-dong.
(4) 그런데 위 (3)항의 인정사실 및 기록에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정， 즉 ① 조세특례제한법 제69조 제1항 소정의 '직접 경작'에 관하여 같은 법 시행령(2012.2.2.대통령 령 제23590호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제66조 제13항은 '거주자가 그 소유농지에서 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생 식물의 재배에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기 의 노동력에 의하여 경작 또는 재배하는 것을 말한다'고 명확하게 규정하고 있는바， 법원으로서는 '2분의 1 이상 자기 노동력'의 의미를 문리대로 해석하여 농지를 직접 경작 하였는지 여부를 판단하여야 할 것인 점(대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2010두8423 판결 참조)，② 이 사건 농지는 그 규모가 작지 않고 원고의 직장이나 주거 등 생활근거지와도 상당히 떨어져 있어 원고가 주식회사 KK합섬의 근로자나 아파트 경비원 등으로 상시 근무하면서 동시에 직접 자신의 노동력을 투입하면서까지 농사일을 병행하였을 것이라고는 선뜻 인정하기 어려운 점，③ 쌀소득 등의 보전에 관한 법률은 자경농지에 대한 양도소득세 감면의 취지와 달리 농업인 등의 소득안정을 입법목적으로 하여 '직접 경작'을 지불금 지급의 요건으로 하지 않는다는 점에서 쌀소득 등의 보전을 위한 직접지불금이 지급되었다고 하더라도 '직접 경작'이 추정된다고 할 수 없는 점，④ 원고가 이 사건 농지를 취득한 후 21년이나 경과한 2005. 8. 8.에 이르러서야 농지원부가 최초로 작성되었고 이때부터의 자경기간을 인정하더라도 3년에 불과한 점，⑤ 증인 이QQ은 '원고로부터 1985년경부터 2000년경까지 3-4회 쌀을 매수한 사실이 있다'고 증언하나， 위 기간은 원고의 부친이 생존해 있던 기간(2000.4.15.사망)이며 '원고가 원고의 부친과 같이 농사를 지었다'라고도 증언하고 있어 다른 직업이 있던 원고가 위 기간 동안 이 사건 농지의 경작에 필요한 농작업의 1/2 이상에 자신의 노동력을 직접 투입하였다고 볼 증거는 되지 못하는 점，⑥ 원고의 처에 의해 작성되었다는 가계부 역시 경작과 관련된 기재는 원고가 자경을 주장하는 1984년부터 2001년 및 2005년부터 2007년까지의 오랜 기간 동안 단 1차례 있었고， 그 내용도 모판 비용을 지출하였다는 것에 불과하여 원고가 직접 노동력을 투입하여 경작을 하였다고 볼 만한 증거는 되지 못하는 점 등을 종합하면， 앞의 (2)항의 인정사실이나 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 5， 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 7， 갑 제8호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재 및 증인 이QQ의 증언만으로는 원고가 이 사건 농지를 8년 이상 직접 경작하였음을 인정하기 어렵고， 달라 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.
(5) Therefore, as long as it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff cultivated not less than 1/2 of the farmland in this case with his own labor for not less than 8 years, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff met the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-defense for 8 years, and the Defendant’s disposition made on the same premise as above is lawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.