Whether the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for reduction or exemption by directly cultivating the instant land for at least eight years

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is engaged in the cultivation of crops on the land of this case for not less than 8 years or not less than 1/2 of the farming work required for the cultivation of crops with his own labor.

Article 66 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation

2013Gudan1298 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

IsaA

Head of SuwonB;

July 24, 2013

August 28, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing OOO on the Plaintiff on August 12, 2011 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

"A. The Plaintiff did not report the transfer income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to CCC on April 6, 2010 on the part of OO-si O-si O-si 718-79,001 square meters (hereinafter "the instant land"), which was acquired on June 27, 2000, and that the instant land was directly cultivated for at least eight years in connection with the transfer of the instant land." (b) The Defendant issued a notice of the decision and notification of OOOOO for the Plaintiff on August 12, 201 on the ground that the instant land does not constitute farmland that the Plaintiff directly cultivated for at least eight years.

C. On December 5, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on March 20, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 3, 1, and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly for not less than eight years, the Defendant imposed the instant disposition on the different premise, and the instant disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 66(13) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Jun. 3, 2011) clearly provides that "the direct cultivation of Article 69(1) of the Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland or growing or growing them using his/her own labor force," and the meaning of "regular work" and "self-working force" should be interpreted in accordance with the language and text, and in light of Article 69(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10406, Dec. 27, 2010) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22953, Jun. 3, 201), it shall be deemed that he/she directly cultivated farmland equivalent to capital gains tax reduction and exemption, regardless of his/her own labor force ratio, and a person engaged in agriculture shall be deemed to have been directly cultivated and sentenced to 201/20 or more of his/her own labor force.

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, each of the evidence of this case, which the Plaintiff had been engaged in the cultivation of the land in question, as well as the entire purport of Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, and the entire purport of each of the statements and arguments, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have appropriated 1/2 or more of the farming work necessary for the cultivation of the land in question with its own labor. Accordingly, the land in this case does not constitute farmland directly cultivated by the Plaintiff for at least eight years.

① It is difficult to readily understand that the Plaintiff, operating each of the above bath and Goo-gu O-gu O-dong O-dong 222-6 located approximately 30 km from the instant land, with the trade name called "D bath" from April 28, 2005, and "E-Public Noticecom" from July 10, 2005, operated the above bath and Goo-gu O-dong O-dong 222-6, and with the trade name called "E-Public Noticecom" from July 10, 2005, is engaging in the farming of crops in the instant land at the same time, engaging in the cultivation of crops in a small area of the instant land at least 1/2 of the farming work required for the cultivation of crops, or using one half or more of the farming work required for the cultivation of crops with his own labor (at this time, the Plaintiff registered each of the above bath and Goo-gu O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 22205, and the Plaintiff’s evidence No.214 and evidence No.215

② From April 1, 1999 to August 19, 2005, KimGG, the Plaintiff’s husband, engaged in the construction business, fishery products wholesale and retail business, operated a general game room from April 20, 2006 to December 7, 2006, and operated an entertainment drinking house from August 28, 2009 to August 15, 2010, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products in the instant land with the aid of KimGGG during each of the above periods, or engaged in the cultivation of agricultural products or with one half or more of the farming works required for the cultivation of agricultural products with its own labor.

③ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not submit any objective data on the place or place of use of the crops for which he claimed that he cultivated the instant land directly, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was engaging in the farming of crops in the instant land at all times or with 1/2 or more of the farming work required for the cultivation of crops on his own labor for not less than 8 years only with the entries in Gap 3 through 9 (Ga number omitted), Gap 12, and witness F.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.