Examination transfer 2009-0056 (22)

Whether or not farmland has been cultivated directly;

The plaintiff is not easy to cultivate land as a public official while serving as a public official.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claims are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 58,423,250 for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008 and the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 302,13,280 for the year 2007 against the Plaintiff on January 2, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff donated 1,745 square meters in ○○○-dong 1691, ○○-dong 1691 (hereinafter referred to as “land”) and 576 square meters in ○○-dong 165-1, and transferred the said land to Nonparty BB on May 30, 2006, and on October 22, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred the said land to Nonparty B in 260,000,000 won.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land ① and ② (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”) constituted farmland on its own, and filed a preliminary return of capital gains tax in accordance with the reduction and exemption provisions under Articles 69 and 70 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant did not correspond to the self-employed farmland under Articles 69 and 70 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Restriction of Taxes, and the Defendant applied heavy tax rate (60%) to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2008 by deeming that each of the instant lands falls under the non-business land under Article 104-3(1) of the Income Tax Act, and imposed capital gains tax of 58,423,250 (i) belonging to the year 2006, and capital gains tax of 302,13,280 (ii) belonging to the year 207, on January 2, 2009 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Grounds for recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 10-1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's principal

After acquiring each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff directly cultivated pawn and mar, etc. at all times, using weekends and holidays. As such, each of the instant dispositions, based on the premise that each of the instant lands does not constitute one’s own farmland, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The provisions of Articles 69(1) and 70(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Restriction of Taxation, Articles 66(12) and 67(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be subject to the reduction of tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax for the farmland which is owned by a resident who is constantly engaged in the cultivation of crops in his own farmland for not less than eight years, or from among the land which is cultivated or cultivated with his own labor not less than 1/2 of farming work, and for the farmland which is cultivated or cultivated with his own labor for not less than 1/2 of farming work, or for the farmland which is cultivated or cultivated with his own labor for not less than 1/100 of the transfer income tax for not less than 0 years, and the provisions of Articles 104(1)2-7, 104-3(1)1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act for not less than 1/2 of the transfer period of the farmland for not less than 1/5 years.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff was employed as a public official belonging to the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office while residing in △△△△△△dong from before acquiring each of the above land from before transferring it, and the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he acquired each of the above land in this case and transferred it to ○○○○○ Dong 234, 00, 000, the address of this case. The above fact is that it is not easy for the plaintiff to cultivate each of the above land in this case at the same time as he is a public official, and it is not easy for the plaintiff to cultivate each of the above land in this case at the same time as he is alleged by the plaintiff, even if he cultivated Na and path on the weekend or holiday, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff performed an indirect operation of the agriculture in this case while referring to the above other occupation as above, or there is no reason to recognize that it exceeded the period of 20 years prior to the transfer of the above land in this case for more than 10 years on the premise that of the plaintiff's testimony.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.