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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 488,307,360 for the Plaintiff on February 2, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land on or around April 1970, 1970 and transferred on January 31, 201, 201, the same ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○ Do and 5136 square meters and 358 square meters and 990 square meters in a miscellaneous land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff cut down the instant land for at least eight years with respect to the transfer of the instant land, and applied Article 69 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11133, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) to the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 94,483,930, when filing a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains accrued for the year 201.

C. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant land was directly cultivated for at least eight years; and (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff to additionally pay capital gains tax of KRW 488,307,360 (including general under-reported penalty tax of KRW 12,848,927 and penalty tax of KRW 142,490,327), which reverts to the Plaintiff for the year 201, by deeming that the instant land falls under the land for non-business use; and (c) excluding the application of the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax and the special deduction for long-term holding of farmland (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 29, 2015, but was dismissed on September 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, 7, 10 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of taxation, the burden of proof regarding the facts requiring taxation exists at the tax authority, and if ownership transfer registration has been made with respect to farmland, it is presumed that the Plaintiff intended to own farmland. Therefore, in this case, the Plaintiff is responsible to prove that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate more than half of the farming work with his own labor. The ○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○ where the land of this case is located was adjacent to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land of this case on April 2, 1970 and March 22, 1972, and thus, the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012) satisfied the re-village requirement pursuant to Article 66(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

또한 원고는 이 사건 토지를 취득한 1970.부터 상추 등 채소농사를 주로 지어왔고, 농업용수 시설이 되어 있어 혼자서도 충분히 물을 줄 수 있었으며, 1986.경에는 비닐하우스를 설치하여 시설농사를 시작하였고, 원고는 이 사건 토지에 채소농사를 함에 있어서 모종 옮겨심기, 수확 등 일손이 필요한 시기에는 지역 주민들에게 품삯을 주고 도움을 받았으나, 재배품종을 정하고 비료, 농약 등을 구입하며, 채소를 판매하는 일까지 원고 스스로 하였으므로, 원고는 1970.부터 2002.까지 원고의 책임과 계산 하에 지역 주민을 고용하여 경작하였다. 소유자의 책임과 계산 하에 다른 사람을 고용하여 경작하는 토지 또한 자경 농지에 포함되므로 이 사건 토지는 자경농지에 해당한다. 따라서 원고는 이 사건 토지 인근에 거주하며 이 사건 토지를 취득한 때로부터 8년 이상 자경하였으므로, 이 사건 토지의 양도는 구 조세특례제한법에서 정한 자경농지의 양도에 해당하여 자경농지에 대한 양도소득세 감면 및 장기보유특별공제가 적용되어야 함에도 불구하고 이와 다른 전제의 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to Article 69(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 66(1) and (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 104-3(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 168-8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23588, Feb. 2, 2012), the transfer of land in this case constitutes a transfer of farmland at its own seat and thus is subject to the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax; in order to be subject to the special long-term holding deduction, a Si/Gun/Gu adjacent to the farmland at the time of the commencement of cultivation; or a Si/Gun/Gu residing in an area within 20 kilometers from the relevant straight line and ordinarily engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants with its own labor force; and the meaning of "self labor force" should be interpreted as one who directly satisfies the requirements of 201/300 million or more.

The burden of proving that the farmland was directly cultivated for not less than eight years while residing in the location of the farmland in relation to self-arable farmland under the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act is against a taxpayer who asserts exemption from capital gains tax pursuant to the relevant provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074, Nov. 22, 2002). Meanwhile, the fact that the farmland of this case in relation to the special deduction for long-term holding constitutes a requirement for non-business land is the burden of proof for the Defendant, who is the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423, Sept

(2) 재촌 요건이 충족되는지에 대해 살펴보기에 앞서 원고가 이 사건 토지에서 '직접 경작', 즉, 농작물의 경작 또는 다년생 식물의 재배에 상시 종사하거나 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자기의 노동력에 의하여 경작 또는 재배하였는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 원고의 주장에 따르더라도 원고가 이 사건 토지에서 채소농사를 함에 있어 원고의 노동력만을 뜻한다면 농작업의 2분의 1을 했다고 할 수는 없고(갑 7호증 참조) 원고는 모종 옮겨심기, 수확 등 일손이 필요한 시기에 일손이 모자라 지역 주민들에게 품삯을 주고 도움을 받았으며 재배품종을 정하고 비료, 농약 등을 구입하며 채소를 판매하는 일을 원고 스스로 하였으므로 원고의 책임과 계산 하에 지역 주민을 고용하여 경작하였다는 것인데, 농작업의 2분의 1 이상을 자신이 직접 또는 손수 담당하여야만 자경요건을 충족한다는 취지의 앞서 본 법리에 의하면 원고의 주장은 그 자체로 자경 요건을 충족하지 못하였다고 할 것이다.

(3) Therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether the Plaintiff resided adjacent to the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.