2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on October 0, 000 and the imposition of KRW 0000 on the Plaintiff on October 00, 000, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred land of 1,210 square meters of 00 square meters in Kimhae-si, 00,000-00, and applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on substitute farmland on January 31, 2013 pursuant to Article 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

B. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with AA and BB for a reduction of or exemption from the gift tax pursuant to the former Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 333-6, 989, 00-0 m2,000 m2,000 m2,650 m2,965 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,965 m2,000 m2,989 m2,000 m2,975 m2,90 m2,975 m2,000 m2,818 m2,000 m2,000 m2,818 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,210 m231,2014).

C. As a result of an on-site investigation on each of the above applications for reduction and exemption, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not reside in the location of each of the instant lands, and did not directly cultivate each of the instant lands and did not meet the requirements for reduction and exemption, and thus, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 000 on October 0, 000, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

D. The Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of each of the dispositions of this case, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 10, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] The Tax Tribunal did not dispute the facts that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1, 9, Eul’s 1 through 11 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s resident registration at the location of each of the instant land had resided and satisfies the requirements for the reduction and exemption of the gift tax and the transfer income tax on each of the instant land, and thus, each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff did not reside at the location of each land of this case and resided in Busan 00-dong 000 000 dong 0000 dong 2000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) where the Plaintiff’s wife and children reside, since the four parcels of each land of this case within 20 km from the apartment of this case are located within 20 km from the apartment of this case, it can be deemed that the above four parcels of this case meet the requirements for gift tax reduction.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that where a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree, who resides in the seat of farmland, etc. and directly cultivates farmland, etc., resides in the seat of the farmland, etc. and directly cultivates it to his/her lineal descendants prescribed by Presidential Decree, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the gift tax on the value of the relevant farmland, etc. shall be reduced or exempted. Article 68(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015) provides that the "direct cultivation" under Article 71(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating or cultivating the crops or perennial plants with his/her own labor, or is engaged in cultivating or cultivating one-half or more farming with his/her own labor.

Where a self-employed farmer donates farmland to a farmer, the purpose of the gift tax reduction or exemption is to support the economic activities of the farmer on the premise that the farmer continues farming, while preserving the farmland, which is the physical foundation for farming, by granting the farmer a tax exemption in case the farmer succeeds to the farmer and continues farming. Thus, in order to reduce or exempt the gift tax pursuant to Article 71(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the farmer’s children must not only cultivate the farmland directly, but also directly engage in farming for three or more years retroactively from the date of donation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du9271, Sept. 22, 1998).

B) Article 70(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of capital gains tax shall be reduced on income accruing from the substitute land for farmland prescribed by Presidential Decree by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland in a manner prescribed by Presidential Decree due to a necessity for cultivation. Article 67(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24368, Feb. 15, 2013) provides that “Direct farming” means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or in cultivating or growing them with his/her own labor.

Here, the meaning of “one-half or more self-working force” ought to be determined as to whether farmland was cultivated directly in accordance with the logical sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept. 30, 2010). A person partially engaged in agriculture for reasons of having other occupation, not engaging in full-time work, should be recognized as having cultivated directly only when the labor force ratio of “self-employed” excluding family members, etc. during the entire farming work is 1/2 or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19700, Dec. 27, 2012). The burden of proving the direct cultivation of the transferred land as a requirement for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax on self-employed farmland is against a taxpayer who asserts reduction or exemption of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002).

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had 3 years old and 00 households of 00,000 and 00 households of 00 households of 1.3 years old and 0 years old and 00 households of 0.3 years old and 00,000 won of 20 households of 9 years old and 00 households of 0.3 years old and 00,000 won of 20 households of 9 years old and 1.3 years old and 00 households of 9 years old and 200 households of 9 years old and 200 households of 19 days of 20 households of 20 households of 20 households of this case’s land among each of the land of this case, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had been residing in 10,000 households of 10,000 households of 20 households of 10,000 households of 20 households of 9 days of 200.

A) The Plaintiff alleged that he resided in the instant apartment house from December 13, 2006 to his wife and children were residing in the instant apartment house. The Plaintiff’s wife and children were residing in the instant apartment house from 2000, and the tax officials were residing in the instant apartment site from March 4, 2013 to March 29, 2013, and from April 21, 2014 to April 25, 2014, only DNA mail was confirmed at the instant apartment site from 30,000 to 30,000,000,000,000 won and 1.3,00,000 won and 4,000 won and 1.0,000 won and 1.0,000 won and 1.0,000 won and 1.0,000 won and 2,03,00 won and 1.6,01,00 won and 2,03,01.

③ In light of the fact that the tax official asked the Plaintiff to submit the details of the use of credit cards to verify that the Plaintiff was residing in the instant domicile, but the Plaintiff did not submit such details on the ground that there was no credit card use. ④ DD testified that the Plaintiff was living in the instant apartment, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, that the Plaintiff was living in the instant apartment.

B) In light of the following: (a) the area of each of the instant lands is up to 12,910 square meters in total; (b) the land located at the above 00 Ri Ri and 00 Ri Ri in each of the instant lands is far away from the instant apartment; and (c) the land located at the above 0 dong and 00 dong are far away from the said 20 km; and (d) the land located at the above 0 dong and 00 dong are far away from the said 20 km, it is difficult to readily understand that the Plaintiff, who lives mainly in the instant apartment, frequently takes away the said distance, was cultivated or cultivated with one’s own labor from each

C) In light of the fact that "AA and DD were mainly engaged in the above 00 land among each of the lands of this case, and the plaintiff was engaged in farming activities as the plaintiff's family members at the weekend," it was confirmed that the CCC, which is the head of the Tong, had the content of the confirmation. DD is a professional farmer who owns approximately approximately 00 square meters of farmland and has been living in the domicile of this case, which is the neighboring land of this case. On the other hand, while the plaintiff, who was mainly living in the apartment of this case, was working as 00 instructors at the private teaching institute of this case until 2008, the above confirmation of CCC has credibility.

D) From 2008 to 2010, DDR received subsidies for preserving rice income on each of the instant land. The subsidies for preserving rice income should be confirmed to have been directly establishing rice farmers.

E) Although the Plaintiff joined the 00 City Agricultural Cooperatives as a member and purchased fertilizers, etc. in the Plaintiff’s name, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff directly cultivated each of the instant land solely due to such circumstance.

F) Although the Plaintiff stated in the farmland ledger that the said 00 interest rate is 00-00 land, etc. as above, the farmland ledger is merely an internal data prepared and kept for the management of farmland and the efficient implementation of agricultural policies, and there is no evidence to deem that the farmland ledger was prepared after checking the fact of direct cultivation. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the entry in the farmland ledger also constitutes sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of self-cultivation.

G) In light of DD’s testimony, there is a lack of objective data, such as agricultural income tax payment certificates, etc. to verify the Plaintiff’s income from each of the instant land through certain time and effort, and in light of DD’s partial testimony, the considerable portion of rice farmers’ agricultural income generated from each of the instant land appears to have been DD.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.