(영문) 서울고등법원 2011. 06. 01. 선고 2010누41323 판결영농자녀가 증여받은 농지에 대한 증여세 감면요건을 충족함[국패]
Suwon District Court 2010Guhap6190 ( October 28, 2010)
Early High Court Decision 2009Du4146 ( October 23, 2010)
It satisfies the requirements for gift tax reduction and exemption for the farmland donated to the farming offspring.
Along on a day, a person who works as an instructor of a private teaching institute is expected to have been able to cultivate crops sufficiently during the remaining hours from the A.M. to the beginning of the P.M., and the farmland area seems to have been broad, and thus falls under a farming child. The donor is cultivated directly for at least three years and satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption of gift tax.
2010Nu41323 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.
Hong-si
○ Head of tax office
Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap6190 Decided October 28, 2010
May 4, 2011
June 1, 2011
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 102,285,00,00, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2009, shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. cite the judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as to the new argument, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion
The RedB, the Plaintiff’s reference, was unable to grow a farmer due to illness around March 3, 2005, and caused the Plaintiff to cultivate each farmland of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff and donated each farmland to the Plaintiff on March 3, 2008. Accordingly, the gift of this case did not meet the requirements of the reduction and exemption provision that the donor must grow directly for at least three years retroactively from the date of donation.
B. Determination
In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 7, and evidence Nos. 9-1 through 4, witness KimCC of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, HongB, the plaintiff's attached, was written as the owner in the farmland ledger for each farmland of this case prepared for the first time on Aug. 30, 1993. The neighboring residents of each farmland of this case prepared a letter of well-known guarantee that the plaintiff, as the children of HongB, was engaged in agriculture with HongB from Mar. 3, 1995 to Feb. 20, 2008. During the above period, the plaintiff had cultivated each farmland of this case with HongB while working as the instructor of a private teaching institute, and was donated the farmland of this case with HongB (the witness KimCC of the first instance court did not have the ability to cultivate the farmland due to urology of 3 to 4 years, but it cannot be accepted in view of the circumstances and content of each of the above farmland of this case.
3. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.