농지를 8년 이상 직접 자경하였는지 여부[국승]
Whether farmland has been self-refilled for at least eight years;
It is not enough to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated tm stm in light of the West, such as the fact that he worked as the head of a hospital specializing in the elderly.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
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 KRW 126,929,120 on January 14, 2009 against the Plaintiff is revoked.
1. Circumstances of the disposition;
A. On February 17, 1997, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3,222 m2 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) with the wifealian and one half m2 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “A”), respectively, on December 28, 2006, sold to B for KRW 1,169,580,000 on December 28, 2006, and upon reporting the transfer income tax on March 28, 2007, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 19,706,710,000 calculated by subtracting the reduced or exempted tax amount from 100 million after filing an application for reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act as farmland with its own knowledge for at least eight years under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.
B. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was not subject to the requirements for reduction or exemption under Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s work at medical corporations** Medical Foundation during the period of ownership of the instant land, and that there was wage and salary income, etc., the Defendant corrected and notified the transfer income tax for the year 2006 to the Plaintiff as KRW 126,929,120 (hereinafter the instant disposition) on January 14, 2009.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1
2. The plaintiff's assertion
원고는 1997. 1.경부터 이 사건 토지를 매입한 후 @@@@병원을 운영하였지만, 검 포에 거주하면서 농사를 직접 지으면서 수확된 농작물 중 일부를 직원들에게 나누어 주었으며, 나머지는 병원 급식용으로 사용하여 왔다.
Therefore, it is illegal to accept the application for reduction or exemption of the Restriction of Special Taxation without recognizing the plaintiff's direct cultivation.
3. Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Form.
4. Determination
The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case for at least eight years.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 3 and 12, the facts that the land of this case has been used as farmland for rice farmers from around 198 to around 1998 can be acknowledged, and there is no counter-proof. However, the requirements for reduction or exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act require the plaintiff to cultivate himself. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the plaintiff works as the head of a medical corporation *** the head of a hospital specializing in the elderly who operated the medical foundation * the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff cultivated 's 's 's 's 's 's
Therefore, as long as the plaintiff's evidence on the requirements for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax is insufficient, there is no violation of the disposition of this case which rejected the application for reduction and exemption, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it