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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of capital gains tax of 000 won for the year 2009 and special rural development tax of 000 won for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

A. On July 21, 200, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 00 OO-dong O-dong 00 O-gun 1,051 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and 426 square meters for 00 warehouse sites (the land category was changed to a warehouse site on April 17, 2006; hereinafter “the instant land”) and 00 square meters for 1,028 square meters for 00 O-dong O-dong 00 (O-dong 00 square meters; hereinafter “the instant building”). On December 12, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 128.7 square meters for 20 square meters for the instant building (hereinafter “the instant building”) and the total land of 2 above (hereinafter “the instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer for 30 square meters for the instant land on December 12, 2005, and accepted the instant land ownership transfer for 30 square meters on August 10, 2009.

B. On October 31, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax base with the Defendant on or around October 31, 2009

With respect to the land No. 1, the provisions on reduction and exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable farmland shall apply, and with respect to the land No. 2 and buildings of this case, the capital gains tax of KRW 59,48,040, calculated by applying the provisions on reduction and exemption of

C. Since November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff’s land Nos. 1 and 2 from the Central Land Expropriation Committee around November 16, 2009

Although receiving KRW 46,041,90 on the objection amount compensation, the preliminary return of the capital gains tax base was not made.

D. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 10,692,240 and the special rural development tax amount of KRW 477,580 in addition to the transfer value of the instant land Nos. 1, 2, and buildings and the said increased compensation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 5, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on or around June 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 10 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff actually used the part of the instant building No. 2, excluding the instant building area, as an orchard, filed a report with a housing appurtenant land at the time of filing a transfer income tax report with the knowledge that it is required to report only as an appurtenant land to the instant building. However, the warehouse part (9m2) of the instant building is an agricultural production facility, and the portion of the instant building No. 2, excluding the instant building area, among the instant building No. 2, is farmland in which trees are planted and is farmland. Only the portion of a manager (29.7m2) of the instant building and 48.3m2 added from June 20, 206, used

The land No. 2 of this case was used as an orchard from around 1974 to around 1996 by the former owner, and was extracted only f trees in the part of the building of this case, and around 1996, the Plaintiff continued to use the part of the warehouse among the building of this case as agricultural production facilities. Accordingly, the transfer income tax on the land No. 2 of this case on the land of this case must be granted a reduction of farmland around 8 years. Even if the Plaintiff did not own the land No. 2 of this case for 8 years, the part of the warehouse of this case and its appurtenant land should be subject to the special deduction for long-term possession.

B. Determination

1) Whether the provision on reduction or exemption of self-arable farmland applies for at least eight years

A) Under the principle of no taxation without law, a tax law interpretation shall be interpreted as a law interpretation, barring any special circumstances, which prevents the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of equity in taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that can be deemed as a clearly preferential provision among the requirements for tax exemption or exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201).

Article 69 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921 of Jan. 1, 2010) provides that "the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the capital gains tax shall be reduced or exempted for the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land directly cultivated by a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree who resides in the seat of farmland for not less than eight years, which is subject to agricultural income tax (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection), and Article 66 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037 of Feb. 18, 2010) provides that "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 22037 of Feb. 18, 2010)" refers to the Si/Gun/Gu where the farmland is located or adjacent Si/Gun/Gu area within 20 kilometers of a straight line from the farmland or the land is directly cultivated or owned for at least eight years."

Here, direct cultivation includes not only the cultivation of hand trees but also the cultivation of another person under his/her responsibility and account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu996, Oct. 21, 1994). Even if a person engaged in direct farming concurrently engages in another occupation as long as he/she is engaged in another occupation, if he/she is a self-employed farmer, it cannot be deemed a self-employed farmer if he/she indirectly engages in agriculture while he/she is in concentrate on another occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du9271, Sept. 22, 1998). The fact of self-cultivation of transferred land shall be proved by the transferor who asserts it actively, and the fact that the transferred land has been used as farmland for not less than eight years, and thus, it is not presumed that the transferor has been a minor (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu96, Oct. 21, 1994).

B) According to each description of evidence Nos. 3, 7, 14, 15, 16, 25, and 26 of this case

1. In the statement of compensation for losses made by the Plaintiff as included in the national rental housing complex development project, the Plaintiff entered 1 and 2 lots of trees, etc. on the ground of this case, on September 17, 2008, on the members of the farmland ledger (the date of the first preparation, September 3, 2001), 000, 000, 000, 290, 300, 297.3m2, 3m3, 297m2, 3m2, 200, 3m3m2, 3m2, 00, 4m3, 00, 00, 00, 200, 00, 000, 00, 00, 20m3m2, 00, 200, 200, 200, 3m3m3,000, 4,000, 20,00.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone were ordinarily engaged in the cultivation of crops from the land No. 2 of this case for not less than eight years, or directly cultivated by cultivating not less than 1/2 of the farming work with their own labor, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the respective descriptions and images of Gap 11, 20, 23, Eul 3, 6, and 7 (including various numbers), and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① Each airline shooting prior to the transfer of the instant land No. 2, the part used as an orchard in the instant land does not seem to be rarely seen. In addition, among the land No. 2, the part of the instant land was indicated as being used as an orchard in the farmland ledger on September 17, 2008. Meanwhile, as the instant land was included in the national rental housing complex development project, the detailed statement of the amount of compensation for losses, the basic survey on the article (as of April 29, 2008), which was prepared as the instant land was included in the national rental housing complex development project, is indicated as having 177 square meters in the instant land, 2.4 square meters in the instant land, and 28 square meters in each concrete Mam28 square meters in each of the instant land. As such, the area excluding the area on which the instant housing, etc. is located on the ground of the instant land No. 2, is merely 218.6 square meters in the instant farmland and its size does not coincide with the area of the instant water ledger.

② From around 1997, before acquiring each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff served in 000 as a public official from around April 3, 1999. On October 17, 2003, the Plaintiff moved into the instant land on June 20, 200, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 and 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3, 2004, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and October 24, 2005, the Plaintiff moved into the instant land on June 20, 2006, but the Plaintiff moved into the instant land on June 20, 200 . In light of the location and distance of each of the instant land.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that he cultivated directly on the instant land No. 1 and 2 by taking off holidays and holidays. However, until December 2005, the Plaintiff owned the land No. 3, and the entire area of the orchard (the area of the orchard No. 2 of the instant land shall be deemed as 297 square meters, as alleged by the Plaintiff) is the entire area of the orchard as it owned the land.

2,376.3 square meters wide, in light of the following: (a) the working hours and labor force for cooking farmers are deemed to be considerable; (b) the time of planting and managing seedlings, such as bamboo trees, etc.; (c) the fertilizers are covered by the paper wing paper by negligence; and (d) the Plaintiff, who resided in a residence located at a considerable distance from each of the land of this case and worked as a public official, is deemed to have difficulty in carrying out the above work entirely for agriculture, even if the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in the said work, had been engaged in the said work entirely in the said work on a holiday and leave; and (b) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff led to cultivating the instant land 1 and 2.

④ On April 29, 2008, the members of the farmland ledger (the first date of September 3, 2001) stated 000, i.e., the plaintiff, 000, i.e., the plaintiff, 000, and 300. In the indication column for farmland ownership, i.e., the first land and the third land in the indication column for farmland ownership, i., i.e., the owner’s name, i., i., i., e., the owner’s name. 200 (i.e., November 5, 1946) transferred the land of this case to the second land of this case on August 27, 2001. From September 13, 2001 to November 7, 2005, 2000, Seoul High-dong, Seoul High-dong, and 2000,0000,000,0000,000.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s blood pressure was high pressure, and that the Plaintiff’s parent was unable to provide the labor force necessary for cultivating the orchard with the finger-free salt, but there was no medical record, etc. to deem that it was difficult to do so, but the Plaintiff did not submit a medical record, etc. (in accordance with the written confirmation of 000, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parent were in the orchard at 000 and 000; the Plaintiff’s purchase of agrochemicals upon the Plaintiff’s or 000’s request; the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s parent were in the form of a farmer’s death, according to the confirmation letter of 00,000 and 00 (No. 7-3).)

(6) The quantity of crops harvested from each of the instant lands appears to be reasonable. The Plaintiff did not submit any objective data at all regarding the place and place of storage of the harvested crops, and rather, the instant building is a house as seen below.

There seems to be no place to keep harvested crops, etc.

⑦ 000, 000 작성의 각 확인서 및 갑 16호증의 기재에 의하더라도 원고 또는 원고의 아버지가 농약을 샀다는 것에 불과할 뿐 원고가 그 농약을 이용하여 주도적으로 배농사를 경작하였다고 보기 어렵다. 뿐만 아니라 원고가 증거로 제출한 확인서들은 그 작성방법과 경위, 기재내용, 작성자와 원고의 관계 등에 비추어 원고의 자경여부와 관련한 객관적인 증거자료가 되기에 부족하다.

2) Whether the instant building and the second land are the land attached to a house and a house

A) Whether a building constitutes a “house” under the Income Tax Act ought to be determined by whether the actual use of a building is a building that actually provides for residence regardless of the use of a building or an injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu584, Sept. 8, 1987; 2008Du21768, Jul. 22, 2010).

B) As to the instant case, the use on the building ledger of the instant building was on the manager (29.7).

The facts of land size and warehouse (9m2) do not conflict between the parties. However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's 2, 13, Eul 4 and 6, the building of this case is divided into rooms, living rooms, kitchen rooms, bathing rooms, etc. The building of this case is in the form of independent dwelling because oil boiler and electric facilities for home use are installed. 000 on October 18, 2005 (not where entry is unclear) and on June 20, 2006, it is difficult for the plaintiff to use the land of this case with 00 m20 on March 21, 2008 and 00, 000, 000, 000, and 000 on each of the above residential building as well as 200 m200,000 on each of the above residential buildings, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the plaintiff's residential area was 100 m20,000.

3) Whether the special deduction clause for long-term possession is applicable

According to Article 95 (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Income Tax Act"), the assets subject to the tax rate under Article 104 (1) 2-3 through 2-8 and Article 104 (6) and the assets subject to Article 104 (6) shall be excluded from the assets subject to the special deduction for long-term holding. However, since the building and the land of this case correspond to two houses for one household as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the building of this case and the land of this case shall be excluded from the assets subject to the special deduction for long-term holding.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-young