8년 이상 농작업의 1/2 이상을 자기 노동력에 의하여 경작한 것으로 인정됨[국패]
Suwon District Court 2010Gudan1699 ( October 21, 2011)
early 2010 Heavy11 (Law No. 15, 2010)
It is recognized that not less than 1/2 of farming work has been cultivated with his own labor for not less than 8 years.
In full view of the fact that a person works as an on-site worker in the field of production in farmland and is expected to have secured the working hours required for rice farming in the vicinity of the farmland, and that a person can be sufficiently rice farming in consideration of the experience and form of work in the previous rice farming, and that the person can be deemed to have worked as an on-site worker in the field of production in the vicinity of the farmland for not less than eight years
2011Nu1697 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax
Maximum XX
Head of Ansan Tax Office
Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap16999 Decided April 21, 201
October 28, 2011
December 16, 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 imposing KRW 157,343,040 on the Plaintiff on March 9, 2010 is revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) except for the supplement of the first instance judgment under Paragraph (2), it is the same as the judgment of the first instance.
2. Supplement of judgment of the first instance court;
The Defendant asserts that even if the Plaintiff continued to engage in the cultivation of the farmland in this case even if he had been engaged in the cultivation of the farmland in this case, it cannot be viewed that he directly cultivated the farmland in this case because it is difficult to view that he had invested more than 1/2 of the farming work.
However, considering the following circumstances cited by the court of first instance, it is reasonable to determine that the Plaintiff used one-half or more of the farming work in the farmland of this case from the end of 1990 to the end of 8 years, in view of the evidence presented by the court of first instance and the purport of the entire pleadings:
① It appears that the Plaintiff acquired the farmland of this case from December 4, 1990 to May 12, 2004, the land category of which was changed from May 12, 2004, the period from December 4, 1990 to May 12, 2004. Thus, even though the Plaintiff did not concentrate on farming day, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff did not have secured working hours necessary for rice farming company near the farmland of this case while working as a field worker in production work place in XX corporation near the farmland of this case, and rather, it seems possible to have sufficiently rice farming companies considering the Plaintiff’s previous rice farming experience, work form in the company, etc.
② As seen earlier, it appears that a rice farmer was found to have been engaged in the farmland in this case for the same period. As such, due to the characteristics of a rice farmer, a lot of labor force is not required compared to a dry field farmer. However, as a result, there are many works requiring dysing, falling short, etc. compared to a dry field farmer, it appears that the Plaintiff used the farmland in this case at least the same level as or above the Daro, which appears to have cultivated the farmland in this case.
③ There is no material that can be deemed that the Plaintiff used the labor force of people other than Daumin as wife when she saw rice farmers and dry field farmers in the farmland in this case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.