8년 이상 노동력의 1/2 이상을 투입하여 자경하였다고 인정할 수 없음[국승]
Cho-2015-China-541 (Law No. 25, 2016)
No one-half or more of the labor force for at least eight years shall be deemed to have been engaged in self-defense.
There is no details of purchase of rice, and it is not recognized that the birth of the birth together with his/her father's residence, the period of residing in the vicinity of the farmland is less than eight years and there is another occupation.
Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)
2016Gudan7587 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
[○]
○ Head of tax office
2016.09.08
oly 2016.106
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 53,514,230 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on March 19, 2015 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 27, 1971, the Plaintiff purchased and acquired 1,639 square meters in ○○○○-gu, Gyeonggi-do, ○○○○-do, ○○○○○-do, 1015 square meters in 1015, 1016 square meters in 1,264 square meters in 1016 (hereinafter “the instant land”). On June 11, 2013, the instant land was transferred to another person by voluntary auction.
B. Accordingly, on March 25, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 53,514,230 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff for the year 2013 following the procedure of pre-announcement of taxation, review of legality prior to taxation, etc.
C. On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office, but was dismissed on July 31, 2015, and again filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on February 25, 2016, and the decision was served on the Plaintiff on February 29, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff is an area adjacent to ○○○-gu ○○○-gu, ○○○-si, where the land of this case is located.
In fact, ○○ and ○○○ had been registered as a resident, but lived in the same house as ○○○ and ○○○○, which was located from around 1997 to around 11, 2003, and thereafter moved to ○○○, ○, ○, etc., the neighboring area, but still cultivated farmland owned by ○○○, ○, ○, and ○○. The Plaintiff was registered in the farmland ledger on July 6, 2005, and was registered in the farmland ledger from around 2005 to around 2009, but the Plaintiff received the subsidies for rice income preservation from around 2010 to 2013, and this was merely limited to one member of the Plaintiff’s household, and the Plaintiff could not become a member of the Plaintiff’s association. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was registered in the farmland ledger on July 6, 2005.
Nevertheless, the instant disposition that excluded the Plaintiff from the application of reduction and exemption of self-arable farmland for at least eight years is unlawful.
B. Determination
Article 69 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of transfer income tax shall be reduced for the income accruing from the transfer of land directly cultivated by the resident prescribed by the Presidential Decree who resides in the location of the farmland for not less than eight years, and as such, the taxpayer has the burden of proving that he has cultivated the farmland directly.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the statement No. 3 and 5 evidence, it is difficult to acknowledge that ○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment with its entire statement and pleading, i.e., the Plaintiff’s purchase of rice from the Plaintiff on 2004 to 2013, and the Plaintiff’s attached No. 18,000 square meters were cultivated along with the Plaintiff’s DongB, and it appears that the Plaintiff would have attempted to move into ○○○○ apartment with its own house with its own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own 's own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her own her her own her her own her.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.